Personal, Social and Health Education
	 — 
	Question

Baroness Massey of Darwen: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they propose to take to make Personal, Social, Health and Economic education compulsory within the curriculum.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: My Lords, this Government want to prepare all young people to succeed in modern Britain. High-quality teaching of PSHE is central to that and we expect all schools to teach it. After careful consideration, we believe that it is not the availability but the quality of PSHE teaching that is the most pressing issue. We have now asked leading head teachers and practitioners to produce an action plan for improving PSHE. We shall continue to keep the status of the subject under review and work with these experts to identify further steps that we can take to ensure that all pupils receive high-quality, age-appropriate PSHE and sex and relationship education.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: I thank the noble Baroness for her response. I have just received a letter to Neil Carmichael from Nicky Morgan, the Secretary of State for Education, which states, as the noble Baroness has stated, the importance of PSHE. This is in response to a letter from four chairs of committees—education, health, home affairs and business, innovation and skills—all supporting the view that PSHE should be compulsory. To quote a brief paragraph—

Noble Lords: Question!

Baroness Massey of Darwen: The question is coming up. Does the Minister agree that the following is important?
	“PHSE is a crucial part of preparing young people for life. It can provide them with knowledge and confidence to make decisions which will affect their health, wellbeing and relationships, now and in the future. It can help develop the skills and attributes needed to secure employment, and can help protect young people from abuse in many forms.”
	When will the Government start listening to such eminent people and when will they respond to these concerns and stop making excuses to disadvantage young people?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: We certainly agree that PSHE is important but what we are most concerned about is the variability in teaching of the subject. That is the most pressing problem, so we want to focus our efforts on ensuring that all children have access to high-quality teaching. However, we do not believe that this will be achieved simply by statute, which is why we are engaging with head teachers to ensure that we can provide all schools with the information that they need to teach high-quality PSHE.

Lord Fowler: My Lords, when there is so much pressure on treating patients in the health service even without industrial action, is it not sensible to have a policy that prevents disease in the first place? Surely good sex and relationship education has an important part to play in achieving better health. It is very urgent that the Government take action on this, even given what the Secretary of State is saying.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: My noble friend will be aware that sex and relationship education is compulsory in all maintained secondary schools as part of the national curriculum, and indeed many primary schools choose to teach it. We are absolutely clear that both sex and relationship education and PSHE are important, which is why we are working with organisations such as the PSHE Association and leading head teachers to ensure that all schools have access to best practice in this area.

Lord Storey: I am delighted that the Minister believes that PSHE should be of high quality and that an age-appropriate action plan is being put together. I am also delighted to hear her say that all students should access PSHE, as that presumably means that all schools will be teaching it, which is a victory for common sense and a victory for the noble Baroness, Lady Massey.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: I am always happy to see a victory for the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. As I said, this is an important area. We are pulling together a group of head teachers who will be producing an action plan and publishing a comprehensive toolkit which will help schools plan and develop their curriculum and access learning and impact, and set out how PSHE can be part of a broad offer to all pupils and parents.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, the police are dealing daily with more incidents of domestic violence and child abuse, and social workers are overwhelmed with case loads where there is harm in the family. Does the Minister not agree that PSHE classes present an excellent forum to give young people an increased awareness of how to protect themselves and indeed how to respect each other? As programmes have already been prepared by the Lucy Faithfull Foundation and the NSPCC, we would not be starting from scratch.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: I agree with the noble Baroness. PSHE can be a very important element of a young person’s education. It can help them develop resilience and manage risks but also focus on the skills and attributes that can help them lead fulfilling lives. It is extremely important, and there is a lot of good practice in evidence out there which we want to help bring together to make sure all schools are delivering high quality.

Lord Watson of Invergowrie: My Lords, the letter which the Secretary of State issued today, after some delay, amounted to an announcement that she had nothing to announce. Why is it that when a range of organisations as diverse as Barnado’s, the Royal College of Nursing, the NSPCC and the National Union of Teachers all express support for the recommendations of the Education Select Committee, the Government believe that they have a monopoly of wisdom on this crucial issue?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: That is not the case at all. In fact, we did announce something today, which is that the variability in PSHE is unacceptable. We want to focus on improving teaching. It cannot be right that 40% of teaching of PSHE is less than good. We want to focus on that and make sure that all young people get access to the high-quality teaching in this area that they need.

The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, although I agree with all that the Minister has said in response to the questions, is it not the case that engaging parents—making sure that what is taught in schools relates to and engages parents as much as possible—is also important to any government action which may be forthcoming in the future?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: Yes, it is absolutely right that parents need to be involved, as do head teachers, which is why, as I say, we are bringing together a group in order to help to develop a comprehensive array of guidance, tools and best practice for schools to use in this area.

Lord O'Shaughnessy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for raising this important issue, although as somebody who is involved in running schools, I am slightly wary of compelling them to do more things given how much there is already in the curriculum. I would draw my noble friend’s attention to one thing with this working group. In the PSHE Association scheme of work, which is the basis for much PSHE teaching in schools, there is no mention that I could find of character. Yet the DfE has made the development of good character the fifth pillar of its activity. Can I make sure that there is proper representation on this working group for organisations that are concerned with how schools can develop good character among pupils?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: Yes, and I can quote from the letter from the Secretary of State:
	“I want PSHE to be at the heart of a whole-school ethos that is about developing the character of young people”.
	I hope that that reassures the noble Lord.

Foreign Workers: Engineers
	 — 
	Question

Lord Soley: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the ability of British manufacturers to recruit engineers from overseas who are suitably qualified.

Lord Bates: My Lords, where no suitable resident worker is available companies may recruit non-EEA engineers to graduate-level roles using the tier 2 skilled work route. Where there is a shortage of applicants, engineering roles are prioritised under the tier 2 limit and employers are not required to advertise the positions before recruiting non-EEA nationals.

Lord Soley: Will the Minister agree to review the way tier 2 is working? It is seriously bad news for small—particularly high-tech—companies which want to recruit overseas but cannot build up a base of experience and have no knowledge of why they get refused. They then have to apply again and often lose the person they need. It is doing a lot of damage to us overseas. If the Minister will not agree to review it, will he at least be prepared to see some representatives of that industry who I could happily to bring to see him to explain why they find it damaging to both productivity and British reputation overseas?

Lord Bates: The tier 2 limit is kept under review by the Migration Advisory Committee, which is an independent committee. It produced a report on tier 2, making a number of recommendations that we are still considering. The key point is that we want to build a more sustainable workforce where the skills needed by engineers—in technology and those areas—are in the resident labour market and do not require people to recruit employees from outside the EEA area.

Lord Harrison: Would a modern Brunel and Pugin be excluded from the current employment applications?

Lord Bates: I do not know about that—obviously, the measure was not in place at that time or for their nationality. What I do know at this time is that we are investing heavily in science skills in this country. We have new science A-levels, new university technical colleges, a new science and technology baccalaureate and the number of apprenticeships in science and manufacturing is up 74%. I think that that would be welcomed on all sides of the House and by Brunel and Pugin, if they were around.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, the standing of a professional engineer in Germany is much higher than in the UK. What are the Minister and the Government doing to enhance the social standing of professional engineers in the UK?

Lord Bates: My noble friend is absolutely right. We need to do more. We talk a lot about raising productivity. We talk about raising skills. We aspire to be a high-skills, high-wage economy. Engineering and manufacturing in the modern world will be a critical part of that. That is why we need to raise their standing. That means raising the quality of apprenticeships. We set this out in English Apprenticeships: Our 2020 Vision, which talked about introducing degree-level apprenticeships in these areas. However, there is much more to be done to ensure that science and technology engineers have the status in our society that they deserve.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, given the wish to have a much higher level of aspiring engineers from our own country, can the Minister tell us how successful we are as far as women engineers are concerned? Are their training and skills at the levels they should be in our own profession?

Lord Bates: I would never say that they are at the right level; we need to do more. However, I think there are many role models and examples of women who have succeeded in the worlds of science and engineering and we need to point to them. We should also encourage more science students to take up the degree-level qualifications required by our growing employment sector.

Baroness Burt of Solihull: Does the Minister really think that it is sensible to persist with a net immigration target that actually hinders manufacturers and other businesses from bringing in specially trained staff from overseas, while at the same time freezing in real terms support for further education to train the people we need here at home? What projections have the Government made on the impact that this will have on our competitiveness in the global market?

Lord Bates: I do not accept the premise of the question, which is that we are not investing. We are introducing the apprentice levy. We are introducing the immigration skills surcharge. The number of apprenticeships has gone up from 1.5 million to 3 million and that of science and technology apprenticeships by 74%. We are investing £200 million in universities’ science and engineering capital funds. We are doing all those things in the expectation that industry will not then go out shopping for employees overseas but will actually use the talent we have grown here at home.

Lord Rosser: My Lords, according to EngineeringUK, Britain needs to recruit 1.8 million engineers by 2022 just to stand still. Yesterday, the Government told us during Committee on the Immigration Bill that no decisions had been made on the rate and scope of their proposed new immigration skills charge on recruitment from outside the EU—which means, of course, that this House is being denied information on precisely what it is being asked to agree to. Are the Government actually considering applying the skills charge—which could be £1,000 per year—to expanding and successful firms which, due to severe recruitment difficulties, can fill all their vacancies for highly skilled engineers only by recruiting from outside the EU?

Lord Bates: First, to the noble Lord’s charge that we are somehow denying the House information, the report produced by the Migration Advisory Committee was received on 19 January; it is now 10 February. The Government have a duty to consult on and consider the findings of the report before we make further decisions. I come back to the central point: we cannot keep saying that we need to bridge the skills gap and raise productivity levels in this country and then create a loophole whereby people can avoid recruiting perfectly qualified and able people in this country and go overseas to recruit them instead. That is not good for Britain in the long term, it is not sustainable, and that is what we want to change.

Baroness Wolf of Dulwich: My Lords, over the past 15 years there has been an enormous increase in the number of engineering undergraduates in British universities, yet we seem to have made remarkably little progress in bridging the skills gap. In fact, engineering graduates have a higher than average unemployment rate six months after graduation. Are the Government acting to investigate and explain why this enormous increase in investment in engineering in universities appears to be having so little impact in the labour market?

Lord Bates: We certainly are in contact with the universities, and there is ongoing dialogue between the Department for Education, the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills and the engineering and manufacturing organisations. We need to tackle that, but we argue that the way to do so is to ensure that those graduates coming out of British universities, having invested their energy and time in this country, are among the first in the queue to be considered for the jobs and opportunities open to them.

Vanguard Submarine Replacement
	 — 
	Question

Lord West of Spithead: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the planned timescale from start of fabrication to commissioning of the first Successor Vanguard replacement submarine, and how much will have been spent on designs, long lead and other items of the total programme, including upgrade to Faslane Naval Base, by April.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I regret that I must withhold planned build times, as they relate to the formation of government policy. Although the department will consider a number of planning assumptions for build times when conducting concept and assessment studies on projects, build times are not confirmed until projects are approved. Information on the annual spend on the programme is updated each year in the successor annual report to Parliament, which is due to be published this year.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that rather disappointing Answer. If one digs around in all the documentation that has been produced, it is quite clear that the build time for the first successor submarine will be something like twice as long as it was for the first of the Vanguard class. There was no real answer on the costs but, again, one has from open source the fact that almost £4 billion has either been spent or is committed to be spent already.
	I know that the noble Earl understands how crucial the replacement of the submarines and the maintenance of the deterrent are to the security of our nation, yet the decision which has to be made in the other place is being delayed and delayed. It could have been made at any time since last November. I know that it is fun to watch Labour wriggling in anguish, and that having cartoons such as that in the Times, with pictures of Spitfires and Fokkers—I hasten to add that that is a type of aeroplane, in case people get confused—is very amusing, but this is too important for scoring party-political points. The British public, for whom I have great respect, understand that and will not be impressed.
	Has there been a ministerial direction to the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Defence authorising him to spend, so far, £4 billion, which will grow and grow, when he knows that a decision will be taken in the House of Commons about whether it should go ahead?

Earl Howe: My Lords, I have no wish to score party-political points on a matter as serious as this. The noble Lord may remember that Parliament voted in 2007 to support the programme to replace the Vanguard-class submarines. That authorised the investment in the programme, including the design work and the long leads. This is the stage we are at now. If we had not commenced the work when we did, it would not have been possible to design and construct the successor submarines before the Vanguard class left service. We are moving ahead with all speed. We are committed to a parliamentary vote because it is only right and proper to give the democratically elected Chamber of Parliament the opportunity to endorse the principle of the deterrent.

Lord Boyce: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that confirmation of the Government’s commitment to the successor programme. There has been some badly informed talk by some people in positions of responsibility on the subject of the vulnerability of the successor to detection in the future. Does the Minister agree that such statements are totally speculative; show serious lack of understanding of anti-submarine warfare, the science of oceanography and the science of the impenetrability of water; and are probably being made with irresponsibly and wilfully misleading intent?

Earl Howe: My Lords, yes. To be effective, the nuclear deterrent has to be credible. We take the responsibility to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent extremely seriously. We continually assess all the threats and review them against the capability of our submarines to ensure their current and future operational effectiveness, including threats against cyber and unmanned vehicles. We are confident that the deterrent remains safe and secure and will be so in the future.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, does the Minister consider that our national security would be at risk if the rest of the world knew that our submarines carried no nuclear armaments?

Earl Howe: My Lords, to state the obvious, a nuclear deterrent requires nuclear warheads. The Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to retain a nuclear deterrent, so having anything less than a nuclear warhead in our submarines would not offer a credible deterrent.

Baroness Jolly: My Lords, without doubt, there is a shortage of engineers to cope with the nuclear programme. Whenever it starts is relatively academic. What action is the MoD taking to recruit, incentivise and train young men and women to be the nuclear engineers of the future?

Earl Howe: My Lords, extensive work is going on across Government to incentivise people to enter the engineering profession. The noble Baroness is quite right. We are working not only within Government but with industry to ensure that the attractiveness of engineering, in the nuclear field in particular, can be shared and that people who enter the profession can look forward to a rewarding career throughout their lives.

Lord Touhig: My Lords, under this Government we have seen a reduction in the size of the Armed Forces. We have no aircraft carriers any longer. At the time when the Russians are increasing submarine patrols by 50%, we have no maritime patrol aircraft. On top of that, the Government want to extend the life of the Vanguard nuclear submarines. I would be less than honest if I did not admit that my party had some problems with defence too; noble Lords might have been reading about them in the newspapers. But there is one policy that does unite at least the two Front Benches in this House, so will the Minister put a simple question to his right honourable friend the Prime Minister and say: “Dave, pull your finger out and damn well get on with committing ourselves to replacing the Trident programme, because it is the first duty of any Government to protect our country”?

Earl Howe: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is being less than generous to the Government, who for the first time in a long time have increased the defence budget, with an extensive programme of equipment in train. However, the message that he sought to give is well taken. I tell him that we are proceeding apace with the successor programme. As I have already indicated, we have an assessment phase, the cost of which so far is £3.3 billion, as budgeted. That will go up to £3.9 billion in the design phase, including ordering essential long-lead items for the fourth submarine. I hope that the noble Lord will take away the message that we are not being slow off the mark.

Charities: Government Grants
	 — 
	Question

Lord Harries of Pentregarth: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they plan to implement their new policy restricting how government grants to charities may be used.

Lord Harries of Pentregarth: I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare a non-financial interest as chair of the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement.

Lord Bridges of Headley: My Lords, less than 7% of the £130 billion of grants paid each year goes to the non-profit sector. From 1 May, departments will be required to insert the clause in all new and renewed grant agreements unless Ministers decide, in exceptional circumstances, to qualify or remove the wording. Before 1 May, departments are encouraged to engage with any grant recipients who are likely to be affected by the clause. It will be for departments to employ existing financial controls and take appropriate action if they believe a clause to have been breached.

Lord Harries of Pentregarth: I thank the Minister of his Answer, but would he not agree that charities that are so often at the front line of meeting human need are in the best position to gauge the effect of government policies on those whom they are trying to help? Therefore, they have a duty to bring any concerns to bear to the Government. In the light of that, does the Minister agree with the compact signed by the Prime Minister in 2010 with civil society that the Government will,
	“respect and uphold the independence of civil society organisations to deliver their mission, including their right to campaign, regardless of any relationship, financial or otherwise, which may exist.”?

Lord Bridges of Headley: First, I pay tribute to the work that the noble and right reverend Lord does in this area and all his contributions to this debate. I understand that there has been concern about this clause. I assure him, the House and charities that, of course, charities will be able to provide advice and guidance to government if it is part of the work that they are being paid to do. This clause aims to prevent taxpayers’ money being used to lobby politicians and government on all manner of other issues. The Government believe that the new clause is compatible with the compact and does not in any way prevent grant recipients from campaigning and lobbying, using their other funds. It simply requires clarity on what the grant funding can be used for.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, the Government have adopted this policy following a lobbying campaign by the Institute of Economic Affairs, according to its 2014 accounts, funded by a source which it declines to disclose. Is it the Government’s intention that charities commissioned by the Government for their expertise will have their ability to influence government policy restricted, while charities funded by anonymous donors, such as tobacco companies, will not?

Lord Bridges of Headley: I slightly dispute the second point. I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to the fact that DCLG has used this clause in 56 contracts since February 2015. For example, the Church Urban Fund, which the noble and right reverend Lord will know, the LGA, Mencap and the Royal College of General Practitioners have all received grants under the new clause. Shelter, likewise, has received a grant, and is currently running its Power to Renters campaign. A number of noble Lords will no doubt have received communications from it as regards the housing Bill.

Lord Leigh of Hurley: My Lords, I declare an interest as having served on the Etherington review of fundraising by charities. Would my noble friend the Minister not agree that, given that individual donors in this country give some £8 billion a year to charities, they should be encouraged to give greater transparency and accountability for the funds that they use for lobbying rather than for good purposes?

Lord Bridges of Headley: I entirely agree with that. I pay tribute to the excellent work that charities do up and down the breadth of this country and to the considerable contribution that many millions of people make in time, energy and commitment. I point out to your Lordships that, obviously, this clause is aimed at the £130 billion paid out in grants annually. While we may be talking here about charities, we should not forget the £74 billion of grant funding that goes to local government, the £24 billion to ALBs and public corporations, the £8 billion to international recipients and the £4 billion to the private sector.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: Would the Minister agree that charities are and must be seen to be independent of government, regardless of their financial arrangements? Would he also agree that any perception that charities are being limited in what they can and cannot say about public policy issues because of their funding would be damaging to public trust in civil society?

Lord Bridges of Headley: Of course I agree with that, but I strongly believe that this clause does not do that. I point out that for a number of years government departments have included a provision that taxpayers’ money should not be used for political activity and this new clause simply clarifies what that means.

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: My Lords, on Tuesday last week we completed the Charities Bill. At 8.32 am on Saturday the Government announced this new policy. Did the Minister know about it on Tuesday when we completed it and would it not have been better to announce it then, when there could have been a debate on this important matter in Parliament, rather than issuing it by diktat?

Lord Bridges of Headley: On the first point, I assure the House that this actually goes much wider than just relating to charities. As I said, it relates to numerous other points. I would also draw your Lordships’ attention to that fact that this has existed in the DCLG and been piloted since February 2015. The DCLG has not received any complaints that it has hindered the work of those charities involved.

Noble Lords: Answer.

Lord Bridges of Headley: And no, I did not know about this at that point.

Lord Hay of Ballyore: My Lords, we have huge salaries being paid to senior charity staff right across the United Kingdom. Some of these staff are being paid more than the Prime Minister. How can that be justified at a time when many of these charities are struggling financially? Can I ask the Minister whether any of the money paid to charities from government grants goes towards salaries?

Lord Bridges of Headley: Part of the process that we are trying to ensure is that these grants are properly audited and that we know exactly where the money goes. Regarding the salaries that charities pay to their senior employees, that is obviously a matter for the charities, but I am sure that they will be noting the considerable public scrutiny that they are under—and rightly so.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, will the Minister accept that there is a world of difference between money going from government to a charity for project work and money that the charity earns by its own fundraising? Surely the fundraised money should be used for purposes not covered by what the Minister said, and charities should be free to spend their money for advocacy as they think fit.

Lord Bridges of Headley: That is exactly right and that is what they will continue to be able to do.

Faversham Oyster Fishery Company Bill [HL]

Faversham Oyster Fishery Company Bill [HL]

Second Reading

Moved by The Chairman of Committees
	That the Bill be read a second time.
	Bill read a second time and referred to the Examiners.

Haberdashers’ Aske’s Charity Bill [HL]

Haberdashers’ Aske’s Charity Bill [HL]

Second Reading

Moved by The Chairman of Committees
	That the Bill be read a second time.
	Bill read a second time and referred to the Examiners.

New Southgate Cemetery Bill [HL]

New Southgate Cemetery Bill [HL]

Second Reading

Moved by The Chairman of Committees
	That the Bill be read a second time.
	Bill read a second time and referred to the Examiners.

Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2016
	 — 
	Motion to Approve

Moved by Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
	That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17 December 2015 be approved.
	Relevant document:14th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on Monday 8 February.
	Motion agreed.

Infrastructure Planning (Onshore Wind Generating Stations) Order 2016
	 — 
	Motion to Approve

Moved by Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
	That the draft order laid before the House on 14 January be approved.
	Relevant documents:15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on Monday 8 February.
	Motion agreed.

Trade Union Bill

Bill Main Page

Committee (2nd Day)

Relevant documents: 15th and 20th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee, 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights
	Clause 4: Information to be included on voting paper
	Amendment 23
	 Moved by Lord Collins of Highbury
	23: Clause 4, page 2, line 32, leave out from “must” to end of line 34 and insert “state the trade dispute to which the proposed industrial action relates”

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, the amendments in this group were due to be debated on Monday night. I recognise that we have quite a few amendments and clauses to deal with in this composite group. The Minister has said that she is in listening mode. These amendments are designed to probe and query the reasons and justifications for these measures. Clauses 4 and 5 are definitely not in the Conservative Party manifesto, and it is arguable that Clause 6 is. We look forward to what the Minister has to say and to her answers to our questions.
	As I have said in debates on other clauses, the Bill does very little for trade union members or to promote good industrial relations. What is does is place greater regulatory burdens on unions and hinder the speedy and amicable settlement of disputes. Today, we seek evidence to justify change and of whether alternatives were considered. Our concerns about these clauses are that the evidence on the problems is non-existent and the rationale for legislative measures does not stack up. We would also like the Government to be as expansive as they can be on what they intend to include in, and exclude from, secondary legislation. The Minister will need to explain the Government’s stated expectation of these measures and the millions of pounds of additional cost to trade union members and trade unions.
	The impact assessment suggests that these measures and Clauses 7 and 8 are expected to reduce strikes by 5% and contribute £1.2 million to UK output. In a series of measures that are more likely to prolong disputes, that a pretty strong claim. Will the Minister outline how this will make such a difference and whether the measures are proportionate?
	In relation to Clause 4, trade unions need to be clear about what they are asking their members to vote for so that they can make a fully informed decision, but there is no evidence that they are not clear under the current arrangements, or a jot of evidence that members or employers feel unable to grasp the issue in the ballot. Unions are required to ask members what type of industrial action they are willing to take part in; for example, strike action, action short of a strike, a work to rule and so on. The employer receives a copy of the voting paper.
	Some employers to try to frustrate the ballot by legal challenge and injunctions and with threats and costs. Some firms can be very inventive, creating a web of different companies to demonstrate that the complex intercompany arrangements mean that multiple ballots need to take place. The management is not obliged to provide any data to help clarify the company delineations and the members concerned. That speaks to one of the problems with the Bill, which is about balance in measures on management and its responsibilities and requirements. When we tried to rebalance these measures, we were told they were out of scope and not to do with trade unions. Is this view shared by the Minister?
	In another place, Nick Boles’s entire evidence base for Clause 4 was that he had two such ballots and did not understand what they meant, and that he felt the use of the words “redundancy” and “pay” was insufficient. This shows absolutely no understanding of the context in which staff are notified of redundancies, in keeping with statute, or how pay is negotiated. I know that the Minister has practical experience of this, and I hope that she can clarify his words today. I suspect that there were fewer unionised staff in Policy Exchange than there are in Tesco, which has a fully unionised and recognised workforce.
	The crux of this debate is what is meant by “reasonable detail”. Will the Minister please provide a few examples? What specifically needs to be given on the date? What would be acceptable and what would be unacceptable? Will the Minister consider that very specific detail may be against the management’s wishes? In those circumstances, would it still want the detail specified?
	Our amendments in this group seek to rebalance the Bill. Perhaps I can set out how they would work in relation to these clauses. Amendment 23 suggests an alternative, practicable proposal that voting papers should simply outline the trade dispute to which the proposed industrial action relates. In the same vein, Amendment 24 adds that the voting paper should include a description of the trade dispute. These may be minor probing amendments, but what, in the Minister’s opinion, would be an ideal ballot paper? Would it be a 200-word essay, or would it be so complex, with so much information, that no one would be able to make a sensible decision?
	Unions are already required to ask members on the ballot paper about the type of industrial action they are willing to take—that is, strike action or action short of a strike. Now the ballot paper must also include a statement alerting members that, if they take industrial action, it may breach their contract of employment, reminding them that they have no protection from dismissal if their action is unofficial; their right to such protection is limited to official action. This seems an appropriate amount of information and in no way misleads workers or members as to the purposes of the ballot, as the Minister will no doubt argue.
	Amendments 25 and 26 delete new subsections (2D) and (2E) on the basis that they are too prescriptive and add next to nothing to the process—certainly not to the value of the content of the voting paper; in fact, they will serve to frustrate constructive employer-union negotiations. For example, in some disputes it would be difficult for the union to predict how employers would respond to strike action and how quickly they would be willing to negotiate a settlement. It would therefore be very difficult for unions to predict when they would plan industrial action and the form the action should take, making new subsections (2C) and (2D) futile.
	Amendment 27 ensures that unions would not be required to comply with the new complex rules set out in the clause if they reach an agreement with the employer about the information that should be included on the voting paper. Again, that is a sensible way to find amicable settlements, with unions and employers agreeing together without interference from the state.
	Amendment 28 establishes an alternative procedure whereby unions would be required to submit a copy of the voting paper to the scrutineer, who will evaluate the text, so avoiding the potential for legal challenge.
	This would mean an independent assessment of the content of the voting paper so that employers were not able to initiate, as I say, vexatious litigation.
	Clause 4, on the information to be sent to members about the result of a ballot, will mean that unions are required to provide more detailed information on the outcome. This represents an additional burden that would particularly impact on smaller unions. Under Section 231 of the 1992 Act, trade unions are already required to inform members and relevant employers about the results. Unions have to follow quite a complex process and there have already been a number of challenges to that process. Case law is being established.
	We also support Amendments 29, 30 and 31, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham. They would remove the requirement on unions to inform members and employers of whether the 50% turnout and 40% threshold has been met. Amendment 32 proposes that the unions should be required to take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure that all members who are entitled to vote in a ballot are informed of the result of the ballot. This would mean that unions would be expected to use the usual methods of communication, including websites, newsletters, notice boards, emails and so on.
	Clause 5 appears to be another pointless measure which serves to add to the burden of unions, with little indication of what purpose or value it will generate. We have given notice of our intention to oppose Clause 6 on the provision of information to the Certification Officer, as we believe that this measure needs to be considered in tandem with the latest section on the massive extension of the role of the Certification Officer, a role that is turning the officer into a regulator, an investigator, judge and jury, shifting it away from serving and protecting the interests of members and towards employers and campaign groups at the direct expense of trade union members. Nick Boles rather gave the game away in Committee in the other place when he made the point that the Certification Officer was now going to play a role in industrial action. It would be better to defer this matter until it can be properly considered later in the Bill. Given the huge concerns, including profound human rights objections, the Government will need to do some persuading about the nature of the Certification Officer, what data are collected and how they are used.
	Detailed examination of the impact assessment does not provide an evidence base for either the scale of the problem or the scope of the solution. The impact assessment is wrong on cost and on behaviour. The measures for regulations are piling up and there is no evaluation of the existing law or of the flaws or effectiveness of the arrangements. If it ain’t broke, why fix it? Is this another round of gesture politics? It is clear that these measures will add cost burdens and bring about a huge extension of the scope of legal challenges, as well as the creation of open-ended opportunities to frustrate legitimate trade union activity.
	Underlying that is a strong view that the Bill is flawed and that it does not account for management as a significant actor in the process; it only assists and encourages backward and poor management practices, which are a major and continuing source of our productivity and competitiveness gap with our major competitor countries. I hope our concerns are similarly shared by others around the Committee.

Baroness D’Souza: My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 24 by reason of pre-emption.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, perhaps I may add one point to the excellent summary given by my noble friend Lord Collins. I would like to make an analogy with the other big thing that is happening in our lives at the moment—the EU referendum. You have to think about what you want to get out of a negotiation and consider whether it is conducive to getting an acceptable outcome if you spell out every possible thing that you might want. It seems to me that there is a risk in the clause that the Government want to include because the unions would be almost obliged to put everything and the kitchen sink in the list of demands. This could be counterproductive and make it much more difficult for unions and employers to resolve disputes. Why? Because they might find it difficult to convince members that they should accept a settlement that does not deal with all the issues listed in the ballot paper. In some disputes, it will be difficult for the union to predict how employers will respond and how they will wish to negotiate the settlement.
	It would be wise, therefore, for the Minister, in her response, perhaps to acknowledge some degree of validity in the idea that it is not always a good thing to put too much information in the question of dispute.

Lord Oates: My Lords, I rise to speak specifically on the measures proposed in Clause 4 and the related amendments. Clause 4(1)(2B) states:
	“The voting paper must include a reasonably detailed indication of the matter or matters in issue in the trade dispute to which the proposed industrial action relates”.
	One might be tempted to ask what on earth that means. Evidence given to the Bill Committee in another place from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and others was critical of these measures on the grounds that they will be counterproductive and likely to cause worse industrial relations. Lawyers for both the trade union side and employers were worried about the litigation that would ensue.
	What this wording means, as the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, set out, is that unions will seek to draw the nature of the dispute as widely as possible on the ballot paper to protect themselves from later legal challenge. By putting “the kitchen sink” on the ballot paper, they will, in the first place, probably confuse the membership more, which is the opposite of what this clause purports to—

Baroness D’Souza: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene, but could the noble Lord clarify which amendment he is speaking to?

Lord Oates: I am speaking to Amendment 23, which was moved to Clause 4.
	The most likely thing is that the clause will have the opposite effect to what is proposed by the Government as their motivation—although, I must say, some of us rather doubt their motivation at this stage. It would be much harder, as has been pointed out, for trade unions to settle disputes once they have put all these issues on the ballot paper because their members may, understandably, object to having voted in favour of action and the dispute being settled before all the issues on that ballot paper are achieved.
	The Minister will know that BIS’s Code of Practice:Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers states:
	“The relevant required question …. should be simply expressed”.
	It goes on to say that nothing which appears on the voting paper should be presented in such a way as to encourage a voter to answer one way rather than another. So I have some questions for the Minister. How does she see the requirement to be “reasonably detailed” fitting in with the requirement that any question is “simply expressed”? Does she not think it likely that a reasonably detailed explanation is more likely to be open to interpretation as encouraging a voter to vote one way or another? Given the Government’s concern that people taking part in a ballot should not be misled as to what they are voting for, does she perhaps see opportunities to extend this principle? Does she think it would be better if the general election ballot had provided a reasonable description of what the Conservative Party had in store for voters? Does she think that voters in the general election could have been told that the first actions of the Conservative Government, on winning an overall majority, would be to take thousands of pounds off millions of hard-pressed working people? That certainly came as a surprise to millions of those voters after the election. Of course she does not. I hear someone referring to the manifesto. The Minister will know that there is already provision for Members to be given information about the nature of a ballot. Again, the BIS code of practice states that unions should give information to their members, including the background to the ballot, the issues to which the dispute relates, and the nature and timing of industrial action that the union proposes to organise. Does the Minister not think that the trade unionists are capable of reading this information and deciding how to vote?
	It is not just trades unionists and, lawyers and professional bodies which think this clause is a recipe for litigation. Conservative advisers on employment relations share this view also. Tom Flanagan, a former adviser to the Conservative Party on employment law, who provided evidence to the Bill Committee in another place, also agrees. He helped to produce a 2008 paper for the Conservative Party which set out most of the changes relating to ballots which are in the Trade Union Bill.
	In evidence to the Bill Committee in another place, Tom Flanagan said that the trade union changes that he had proposed were unable to proceed in the last Government, largely because of opposition from the Liberal Democrats. He is certainly right about that.
	While praising many of the provisions of the Bill, he went on to say that a reasonably detailed indication of the matter or matters in issue,
	“is likely to be a step too far, in my view, and risks more legal challenges in endless satellite litigation”.
	If the Government will not listen to us on this matter, will they perhaps listen to him and accept Amendment 23?
	The measures set out in Clause 4 in particular demonstrate everything that is wrong with this Bill. They are unnecessary. The Government have produced no evidence of a compelling case. The provisions are a politically motivated attempt to tie the trades unions up in red tape. They are poorly drafted and will be a lawyers’ paradise. They will ensure that disputes are drawn as widely as possible and that they are as hard to resolve as imaginable. They will be entirely counter- productive to what I hope all Members of this House want to see—good industrial relations in this country. For those reasons I hope that the Minister will consider very carefully the amendments before us.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, the other Liberal Democrat spokesman wants to come in, so I will be brief. I did not realise that she was going to stand at that moment. I apologise.
	I very much support and endorse the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, in his cluster of amendments, and the equally sagacious contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Oates, on these matters. Clause 4 is one of the areas where even the most objective supporter of the need for modernisation of procedures between trades unions and employers would say that there appears to be a dark intent behind them. It would cause unnecessary difficulties for unions in the normal pursuance of their functioning, including when trade disputes arise, allowing an unfair advantage to be built in on the employers’ side. Yet, while a large number of employers remain silent, the ones who have been consulted express grave reservations about this Bill.
	I always like to assume good intentions on the part of any Government, so I assume that this Bill had been drafted by the normal team of parliamentary draftsmen on behalf of the Government, therefore within an objective capsule of content. But the tone and content are repeatedly suggestive of outside agencies, including maybe the IoD—I apologise in advance if I am getting that wrong and being unfair—and more likely the Institute of Economic Affairs and, even more sinister, the Centre for Policy Studies, giving their suggestions and ideas about these matters. A modest number of rather right-wing oriented business leaders in this country—most business leaders are not right wing, left wing or whatever, just sensible and pragmatic—who are more myopic about the subtleties of modern industrial relations and the good balance between employers and unions have also had their contributions registered and put into the machine and been redrafted by professional draftsmen.
	In moral and practical terms, a Government elected by 24% of the electorate in the last general election should not be allowed to put such provocative ideas into Clause 4 and other clauses that we will debate after this. I hope that the Minister will once again think very carefully about the implications of pressing ahead with a poorly drafted, provocative and narrow-minded text, which will surely cause severe problems in industrial relations if it is allowed to pass. If it goes back to the other place I hope that they will also have second thoughts and that this will be carefully considered, not least by Members on the government side. I keep my promise now and allow the Lib Dem spokesman to speak.

Baroness Burt of Solihull: I am grateful. My Lords, I do not want to detain the House because there is a lot to get through, but I want to make a very brief general point on Clauses 4 and 5. I am sure that every noble Lord would agree that we want legislation that will work. Our concern is that it should not tie either side up in legal knots on the information that they have to include on the ballot paper, or on the way trade unions communicate the result of the ballot.
	Our concern is that the specificity of the requirements may lead to some kind of legal challenge by the employer or others, as my noble friend Lord Oates said. Surely we should have in legislation what any reasonable trade union member would expect to be told and what a reasonable trade union would expect to tell its members. That is why my Amendments 29 to 31 would enable the concept of “reasonable belief” to enter the equation, instead of specific legal questions, the contravention of which might result in a challenge. We also support Labour’s Amendment 32, which would inject that tone of reasonableness into the whole process of reporting the result of a ballot to union members.

Lord Pannick: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, just said that the legislation should contain what a reasonable trade unionist would expect to see on the ballot paper. For my part, I am having difficulty understanding the criticisms that have been made of Clause 4. There is some substance to them, but the clause is not “provocative and narrow-minded”, as the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, suggested. Surely, if one is to have a ballot that will be of vital legal significance in identifying whether the union and its members will be immune from legal action, it is perfectly reasonable to provide that the voting paper must give those who are voting basic information about what they are voting for.
	Three items are mentioned in Clause 4. First, the voting paper must include an indication,
	“of the matter or matters in issue in the trade dispute to which the proposed industrial action relates”.
	That seems to me perfectly reasonable. The criticism may be justified in the words “reasonably detailed”. I understand the criticism of those words because there is a danger that they may lead to legal difficulties. If those words are removed, what is the objection to the person voting being told expressly and clearly the matters in dispute that he or she is being asked to vote on?
	Secondly, where the voting paper,
	“contains a question about taking part in industrial action short of a strike, the type or types of industrial action must be specified”.
	What is wrong with that? It is a perfectly reasonable basic requirement. Thirdly,
	“the voting paper must indicate the period or periods within which the industrial action or … each type of industrial action is expected to take place”.
	Again, the reasonable trade unionist who is being asked to vote surely needs to know the length of time for which the industrial action is going to take place. Concerns have been expressed that these provisions may lead the trade union to put in, as was said, the kitchen sink. I should have thought that any trade union that did that would be very badly advised indeed, because it would be likely to confuse the members and far less likely to satisfy the statutory thresholds.
	I am particularly puzzled by Amendment 27, which would provide that these new provisions,
	“do not apply to any ballot where there is an agreement between the employer and trade union”.
	Surely that leaves out the interests of the employee. There may well be an agreement between the employer and trade union, but it may not work to the benefit of individual employees. Therefore, I think there is some force in some of the criticism, particularly of the language in new subsection (2B)—“reasonably detailed” —but the criticisms are very substantially overblown.

Lord Collins of Highbury: May I ask the noble Lord about that “reasonably detailed”? My noble friend referred to the kitchen sink, but a pay claim may have several items within it, perhaps as many as 20, some more important to some groups within a firm than to others. There is a balance to be struck. The trade union balances that in negotiations and often has to choose, but of course the trade union is representative of those employees; it is not an outside body. At the end of the day, it is those employees who have the vote.
	My problem with “reasonably detailed” is what you leave in and what you leave out. When I was a trade union official and we faced the possibility of a legal case—the possibility that we would be challenged—the tendency was to say, “Let’s put in the kitchen sink to make sure that we do not get it wrong”.

Lord Pannick: That is precisely why I expressed my understanding and support for the suggestion that the words “reasonably detailed” are unnecessary and may well be counterproductive. I see the force of that criticism, but only that criticism. Let me add that the noble Lord, Lord Lea, was concerned that this would require the trade union to put in its demands; it would not. What it requires is that the voting paper must indicate the matter or matters at issue. If we take out “reasonably detailed”, I cannot see the objection to a ballot paper indicating—not setting out in detail, but indicating—the matter or matters in dispute. That seems perfectly reasonable.

Lord Monks: My Lords, I remind the House what unions are already required to do. They must ask members, on the ballot paper, about the type of industrial action that they are to take, whether it is a strike, an overtime ban or whatever. That has to be specified on the paper at the moment. The ballot paper must also indicate that there may be a breach of their employment contract. In my experience, all ballot papers have a statement of what the dispute is about, what people are voting about. They do not just say, “Will you go on strike?” out of the blue. In the postal ballot there is a statement saying what the dispute is about. My question to the Minister is: why do we need this? What is the problem that she is trying to solve?
	I know what the effect will be. My learned friends—I exclude the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, from that description at the moment—will be poring over every ballot paper to see if it ticks all the boxes that the Government are trying to introduce. There will be an industrial dispute of some kind and disputes about the ballot paper. Members will say, “I don’t like that”, or employers will. I am not sure if it is a kitchen sink, Pandora’s box, or what the metaphor is, but it is a totally unnecessary bit of red tape.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: My Lords, these clauses are about making sure that union members have clearer information on the voting paper about what action is proposed, when and why. They also ensure that members, and the certification officer, know about the outcome of the ballot. The increased clarity is an important part of our package of trade union reforms. In some sense having the right information defines everything we are about, and I think there is some common ground on this issue.I am grateful to the Lord Speaker for clarifying which amendments we are addressing. I will try to answer the points made amendment by amendment.
	Noble Lords expressed concern about the new information that the Bill requires a trade union to provide on the voting paper. They want to keep the status quo, or at least reduce the amount of information that the Bill requires. There is also a worry about the risk to a union of a legal challenge for failing to comply with the requirements, and about increasing burdens and bureaucracy on trade unions. We do need some change because the law does not provide enough transparency.
	In response to the noble Lords, Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord Oates, I say that it is more useful, for both the union members and the employer, if the voting paper is clear and transparent about what issues are in dispute. This will aid negotiations as they will be able to focus on exactly which aspects of—for example—pay remain unresolved. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on this. The aim is to provide more certainty about the issues in dispute, thereby reducing the risk of legal challenge to the validity of the mandate, which would be costly for both parties, as other noble Lords have hinted.
	We used the words “reasonably detailed indication” of the matter or matters at issue in the trade dispute, because if there is any more detail that a union could reasonably give on the voting paper then it has not complied with the requirement.

Lord Cormack: I have listened very carefully. Would it not meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, if we said a “clear indication” rather than a “reasonably detailed” one?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: I thank my noble friend. That is certainly something we can look at.
	I was asked for an example. In a trade dispute about pay, it would be reasonable to expect the union to state which year’s pay offer is in dispute, and which employees are covered by the offer. This may be done in some cases but in others it may not. I am concerned about a trade union simply stating the trade dispute, as proposed in Amendments 23 and 24. This would not ensure that the voting paper was sufficiently clear. Members need to know exactly what they are voting for—if there is a strike they lose money.

Lord Stoneham of Droxford: Is it not a reality that any ballot paper would have accompanying documents setting out the case for the vote. Surely that is where the detail should be, not on the ballot paper.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: We do need clarity. I have listened to what has been said in relation to the reasonably detailed indication. We have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Collins, Lord Oates and Lord Pannick, about what that might mean in practice. I would like to reflect on whether we have got that right. Probably what everybody wants is a balance, so that there is sufficient detail and members can make an informed decision without unnecessary burdens being put on unions by asking them to include a long and detailed account of the trade dispute.
	I turn to Amendment 25. Terms such as “action short of a strike” are too wide. The type of industrial action proposed will depend on the circumstances of each dispute and the industry concerned. It is important that members know which type they are voting on because of the different impacts on people’s lives. I reassure noble Lords that we have considered that there might be a degree of uncertainty when a union is drawing up its plans about what action it might subsequently take. But it must surely have in mind a plan for such action. All we are asking is that that plan is made available to members.
	I am concerned that Amendment 26 would mean that there was no requirement to provide any information on the voting paper about the timing of industrial action, which is a key point. We want to avoid the situation where a member might have made a different decision had he or she realised when the strike would take place. For example, Unite conducted a ballot where British Airways staff voted to strike, but it is not clear that they would have supported the strike action had they known they would have been called out for 12 days over Christmas. We want to avoid that sort of thing.

Lord Dykes: I will be brief. Coming back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, made earlier, and allowing for the fact that the example the Minister gave about the airline dispute over Christmas was a very esoteric example and not a generalised one, why can the Government not be more benevolent and consider that in the background and the immediate run-up to the ballot being launched there would have been plenty of explanation in the union’s communications to its paid-up members? Presumably, the intentions of the trade union and details of the dispute would have been reported in the press so that the public would be well-informed as well. Everybody would know about it. Why does the ballot paper itself have to be sullied with further extraneous detail of that kind?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: My Lords, I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Lord. Having the necessary information on the ballot paper is important. You cannot always rely on the press to give you all the information you need to know.

Lord Collins of Highbury: The Minister has referred to a specific case. One of the problems with the impact assessment is that it does not detail what the impact of these proposals will be, particularly in the private sector. The problem with the measures being proposed is that they seem to stem from specific actions in the public sector. But if she does take the British Airways situation, has she assessed what the unintended consequences could be of a union specifying such things in the ballot? She has failed to mention that in the private sector the vast majority of industrial action ballots result in speedy negotiations and a speedy settlement. The problem with putting this information on the ballot paper is that it becomes so specific and public before those speedy negotiations can take place.
	I wonder what British Airways would think of the Minister’s proposal that Unite puts on an industrial action ballot, “We will close British Airways down over Christmas”. I wonder what British Airways would say to the Minister—because I know what it would think. Even before the result of the ballot is known and even before there is any suggestion of industrial action, most people will be cancelling their bookings, costing British Airways a substantial sum of money. Is that what she is proposing?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: I think that the noble Lord makes the argument for the Bill: trying to bring in a greater degree of clarity. I have given an example, which I think is a good one. Perhaps I might proceed.
	The approach proposed in Amendment 27, which puzzled the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, requires agreement with the employer and could result in too much time and effort being spent on trying to agree the wording on the voting paper, instead of trying to resolve the dispute. I think that this is common ground. Trade unions will generally want to maximise the possibility of achieving the proposed thresholds and to have clarity and certainty about who is entitled to vote, which is the subject of Amendments 29 and 30. I reassure noble Lords that the law already protects trade unions against challenge over insignificant breaches of the balloting rules.
	For example, many of the provisions in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 on balloting are subject to a “reasonableness” requirement. A union cannot be held to account for trifling errors when it conducts a ballot. Sections 226A and 234A require that the lists and figures supplied in the ballot and strike notices must be,
	“as accurate as is reasonably practicable in the light of the information in the possession of the union at the time when it complies”.
	Section 227 confers entitlement to vote,
	“to all the members … who it is reasonable at the time of the ballot for the union to believe will be induced”,
	to strike.
	In addition, Section 232B provides that a union still complies with the requirements on balloting, even if it has made some error in the process, if,
	“the failure is accidental and on a scale which is unlikely to affect the result”.
	There is also the case of RMT v Serco, which established the margin of error on which trade unions can rely, thereby adding clarity and certainty around the statutory reasonableness requirement. All of this means that the obligations are not intended to be unduly onerous for unions.
	Amendments 29 and 30 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, go further by allowing the union to import a “reasonable belief” into what is a trade dispute, so removing the current objective test to determine whether a matter constitutes a trade dispute. This would allow the issue to be opened up to uncertainty, according to what the union believed.
	Amendment 31 addresses concerns about unions complying with the requirements to ballot those who are entitled to vote. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that, in future, unions will have more certainty that those who are entitled to vote receive a postal ballot paper. This is because the previous Government introduced a requirement for unions to submit membership audit certificates. This enables unions to demonstrate that they are complying with their duty to keep membership records accurate and up-to-date.
	Amendment 32 is duplicative. Section 231 of the 1992 Act already states:
	“As soon as is reasonably practicable after the holding of the ballot, the trade union shall take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure that all persons entitled to vote”,
	are told the result of the ballot. Members and employers will therefore know the number of votes cast and the numbers of individuals answering yes and no. It would not be fair to leave them to work out whether the thresholds were met, especially as the union will have calculated the result in order to know whether it has secured a mandate.
	On Clause 6, I agree that it is not sensible under this amendment to go into too much detail on the Certification Officer, since we shall come to that on day 4. But this clause is important because timely provision of good quality information is a key component of ensuring effective regulation and it gives confidence to those affected by disputes. The need to provide such confidence is why annual returns—

Lord Oates: With regard to Clause 6, can the Minister tell us more about the regulatory impact? Under the coalition Government we introduced a rule of one regulation in, one out, and later we made that one in, two out. Which two regulations will be removed from trade unions as a result of this clause?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: I shall look at what the noble Lord has said. The way one in, two out works is that where a new burden is brought in, equivalent burdens in pounds million are reduced. Obviously we produced an impact assessment for this and we shall be ensuring that when regulations are totted up, double the resulting amount is deregulated elsewhere. Under the system, one Bill is not linked with another but the totals are totted up. The noble Lord makes a good point about the importance of deregulation—and impact assessments are important for the same reason.
	I have pretty well finished on this point, but the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about the secondary legislation that the Government would be making in relation to these clauses. There is no power to make secondary legislation in respect of Clauses 4 to 8. The provisions are set out in the Bill, which is why it was right to take the trouble to spend a little time setting out what was intended.
	We have had a constructive discussion. There is a little further work in terms of scrutiny on this particular section. I am grateful for the points that were made, particularly on the issue of reasonably detailed indication. I should like to reflect further and in the mean time I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Collins of Highbury: I appreciate the Minister’s comments. It is important that she reflects fully on all aspects of this because the unintended consequences could be far worse than the Government expect. The impact assessment is incredibly poor in terms of assessing what effect these proposals could have, particularly on the private sector. But in the light of the Minister’s comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 23 withdrawn.
	Amendments 24 to 28 not moved.
	Clause 4 agreed.
	Clause 5: Information to members etc about result of ballot
	Amendments 29 to 32 not moved.
	Clause 5 agreed.
	Clause 6 agreed.
	Clause 7: Two weeks’ notice to be given to employers of industrial action
	Amendment 33
	 Moved by Baroness Donaghy
	33: Clause 7, page 4, line 4, at end insert—
	“( ) At the end of section 234A(4)(b) of the 1992 Act (notice to employers of industrial action) insert—
	“, unless the employer and union have reached an agreement in respect of the industrial action, in which case the appropriate period is the period ending with the seventh day before the day, or before the first of the days, specified in the relevant notice.””

Baroness Donaghy: My Lords, one of the difficulties about moving an amendment on employment relations in a Bill which some of us consider is not about employment relations is finding a context where employer and employee have a mutual relationship which works most of the time but occasionally breaks down—and the extent to which the state intends to help or hinder on those occasions.
	A senior civil servant, who shall be nameless, was once asked, “Why is there always an anti-trade union Bill when the Conservative Party wins an election?”. The civil servant replied: “There are two reasons. First, it will delight the local Conservative associations and, secondly, it does not cost anything”—unlike building a motorway or lowering taxes. My Amendment 33 does not cost anything either. Its purpose is to highlight the importance of the relationship between the employer and the trade union and its members, and to recognise the benefits of mutuality in the timing of industrial action. Its objective is to give some flexibility in what can be a very fraught atmosphere.
	The existing requirement of seven days’ notice of industrial action once a ballot mandate is achieved is not, in itself, a problem. It is extremely rare for employment relations to be so bad that the lines of communication between management and trade union are completely severed, and notice of intention to hold the ballot will already have been given. During the ballot period, the union will campaign for a successful outcome, and management will inform employees why industrial action is unnecessary. The seven days’ notice only kicks in when the ballot is successful from the trade union angle; it is not relevant if the ballot fails. The employer and union will then know where they stand. If the intention is to hold, say, a one-day demonstrative strike, it is in the interests of the employer to be allowed to agree the timing of the strike with the union—not because it will agree with the strike, but because it recognises the reality of the situation and wants to lance the boil as soon as possible. I am not arguing that two weeks’ notice, in isolation, is a bad thing, but in the context of the total package of this Bill, it is patronising. It is also damaging to take certain judgments away from management and unions in this situation.
	The impact assessment talks about “contingency arrangements” and then goes on about,
	“more cost effective contingency arrangements”.
	I would be interested to know what these are and what the difference is between them. For instance, is it hiring agency staff to cover which, of course, is more expensive? I do not believe any respectable agency will get involved with this anyway. Will it be hiring people at 4 am from the car park near B&Q on the Old Kent Road—similar car parks are available—which is what the construction industry does? That would certainly be more cost effective as a contingency plan.
	The impact assessment refers to both parties seeking,
	“to reach a mutually acceptable”,
	that word mutual,
	“conclusion to the dispute without resorting to a ballot for industrial action”.
	That is language I understand and anyone involved in employment relations understands. However, everything in this section of the Bill reveals a mindset that is just the opposite of good employment relations. This mindset wants to maximise bureaucracy for trade unions and make any strike open to legal challenge. It puts so much on the ballot paper that the exit strategy becomes impossible, takes away any flexibility to manage a difficult situation and implicitly encourages strike breaking. The TUC has said that the proposal for 14 days’ notice,
	“is designed to reduce the momentum in union campaigns”.
	My amendment would allow management and unions some control over events. It recognises that mutuality is important even in times of strife and keeps the channels of communication open. I hope the Minister feels able to support it.

Lord Stoneham of Droxford: My Lords, I want to make to a couple of points on this group. Why it is necessary to change the notice? What is the significance? On the face of it you might say, “What is the difference between one or two weeks?”. In the context of our suspicion as to where the Government are coming from on this, I think there needs to be suitable due diligence to look at what really is necessary. The Committee ought to be reminded that it will not be one week. To give notice that you are going to have a ballot, to have a ballot and then to have another week or two after it to give notice for industrial action gives the employer quite a lot of notice already of what could happen.
	I accept that the Government are changing the need for action within four weeks of the ballot, so if this was a quid pro quo for that requirement—I do not see the Government arguing that—that might be more understandable. With all the detail that is going to go on the ballot paper, if the date of the industrial action is specified on the ballot paper is that going to act as notice? Is that going to be adequate? Have the Government thought of that?
	The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, recognises reality, and where there is agreement between an employer and the trade union it makes sense to recognise that and exclude it from this provision. We question the essential nature of this section of the Bill but we also understand that whether it is one or two weeks will not make a huge difference in the context of the notice that the employer already has of industrial action.

Lord Callanan: My Lords, I listened carefully to the two speeches supporting this amendment. There has been a lot of talk about management on the one side and unions on the other and the context of balloting and industrial action but neither of them mentioned the people actually affected by the action—the commuters who want to go to work or the parents who want to take their children to school so they can work. Surely they have the right to at least two weeks’ notice to try to make alternative childcare arrangements, adjust their own employment arrangements or make alternative transport arrangements so as to go about their normal, lawful proceedings at the time. To give them two weeks’ notice is reasonable. Obviously, unions and management are important, but I ask noble Lords to bear in mind that other people are affected by action as well.

Lord Collins of Highbury: The noble Lord has made a point about the time that this process takes, but we are focusing on industrial action ballots. Anyone listening to our debates would think that industrial relations were simply about industrial action ballots; of course, they are not. In the private and public sector, negotiations take place every year without the need for them. We now have a statutory framework for industrial action ballots that provides for time periods. With this additional proposed week, we now have one week’s notice to the employer that a ballot is taking place, at least two weeks for the ballot period, then the announcement of the ballot result, before giving a further two weeks’ notice. We end up with a period of balloting for industrial action of some five weeks: five weeks to create uncertainty for an enterprise.

Lord Callanan: I understand the point that the noble Lord is making, but that is five weeks’ notice that it might happen; there is only two weeks’ notice of the precise date when the action will take place.

Lord Collins of Highbury: As my noble friend pointed out, the rationale for the amendment has been changing while the Bill has been under consideration. Nick Boles in the other place said that the clause will give employers the last opportunity before industrial action takes place to reach a negotiated settlement. At least that is a positive approach. The purpose of industrial action is not inflicting pain, distress and disruption. Clearly, that happens; there are always consequences. Its purpose is in the negotiating process: to try to bring parties together. In the main, at the end of the day, whatever the strike, there is a settlement and an agreement. It is sad that, often, it is strike action or the threat of it that brings parties together. I wish it was not so.
	The Minister—I know I keep mentioning this; she must regret it—was part of an industrial agreement with a trade union in Tesco, which has practised a very good partnership agreement. Through the practice of negotiations, it strives to avoid disruption to the enterprise. That partnership agreement recognises that the success of the enterprise is in everyone’s mutual interest—to come back to the word “mutuality”.
	Nick Boles said that the extra week is to provide that opportunity so that negotiations can take place to reach a solution. I want to challenge that a bit. The impact assessment seems to be about something else. It suggests that it is about making arrangements for contingency plans. The Government have conducted a consultation, and published the results in the impact assessment, on the use of agency workers to cover duties normally performed by an employee of an organisation who is taking part in a strike or other industrial action, but there are no provisions in the Bill on the use of agency workers. Will that be included in the Bill on Report, or will we face another series of amendments that propose secondary legislation? As my noble friend pointed out, such action is likely to undermine industrial action and will give employers an incentive to engage at the local car park rather than in positive negotiations to reach a mutual settlement.
	I support my noble friend Lady Donaghy’s amendment, which returns the notice period to seven days. Our Amendment 34 is basically another probing amendment.
	It states that, where a union has indicated a specific date for industrial action on the voting paper—as the noble Lord has mentioned—it is not then required to give the notice.
	We are trying better to understand the intent of the Government and the consequences of these actions. I am keen to get a sense of the Minister’s thinking on why two weeks. What evidence have the Government considered which demonstrates that the current seven-day period is ineffective?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, for her amendments and for the contribution she made to industrial relations as chair of ACAS. I always listen very carefully to what she says because she knows so much about this important area. We also recognise the important part that negotiations play in reaching a resolution in disputes between unions and employers. One wants to avoid these where one can. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for reminding me of the good partnership we had between unions and management when I was at Tesco.
	Serving notice of an intention to take industrial action is the last stage in the process before a union may actually take such action. This is when continuing dialogue between the parties becomes even more important. This is why we are moving from seven to 14 days, thereby providing a longer of period during which trade union and employer can discuss and strive to reach agreement on how best to resolve the dispute without recourse to industrial action. There is, of course, nothing to prevent a union and an employer continuing to negotiate after the notice has been served. Indeed, this happens already. Having a longer statutory notice period should not affect this.
	We fully appreciate that a negotiated settlement is best for all concerned. It is better for the employer, the union and its members and—crucially—for the public. Those whose lives can be so affected should be confident that the law provides every opportunity to avoid such disruption.
	The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, asked about ballot paper dates. My understanding is that we will not require unions, when balloting, to provide a specific date. It is an indication of the time period; it does not have to be a specific date.

Lord Stoneham of Droxford: I thank the Minister for giving way. The point I was making was that, if unions put the date on the ballot paper, will that provide a defence that they have given notice?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: We will come back to that. In the mean time, I will deal with a different point. I have a serious concern about removing the notice and instead relying on the indicated period from the voting paper, as suggested in Amendment 34. An indication is a much vaguer concept. People must have notice of the days when industrial action will take place, or they cannot make the contingency plans that we have been discussing. These can, of course, help to reduce costs on both sides.
	The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, most eloquently made the point that strikes can have a wider effect and cause a huge amount of disruption—not only for businesses but for the public. The public need an appropriate amount of time to make contingency arrangements. My concern is that the noble Baroness’s amendment does not address this. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness has made some good and interesting points, on which I would like to reflect.
	Finally, to return to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, on whether a specific date on the voting paper would constitute notice, our answer is no.

Lord Collins of Highbury: Could the Minister give me a specific answer about the issue of contingency plans? The impact assessment talks about agency workers. If she is going to reassure the Committee that there is no intention to bring forward amendments or provide for secondary legislation, I shall be very happy.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: My Lords, I should like to look into that and revert, either under a later amendment or in writing, on the point that has been raised.

Baroness Donaghy: I thank the Minister for her response and echo what she said about taking every opportunity to avoid disruption. I thought that that was the purpose of my amendment—that employers and trade unions can take advantage of certain opportunities for two-way communication to accept the inevitable but minimise damage. I entirely sympathise with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, about disruption to the public. It is very difficult to have any strike action—you could argue that there was no point in such action—that does not disrupt anybody. We are all here hoping that we can avoid strike action. The suspicion that some of us have is that the purpose of the Bill is to prevent strike action. I am trying to find a small shaft of light to recognise that management and unions find themselves in a difficult position, after a clear mandate, and give them every opportunity of arranging the date so that it is mutually beneficial—if there is such a thing—during a period of strike action. In the light of the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 33 withdrawn.
	Amendment 34 not moved.
	Clause 7 agreed.
	Clause 8: Expiry of mandate for industrial action four months after date of ballot
	Amendment 35
	 Moved by Lord Collins of Highbury
	35: Clause 8, page 4, line 14, leave out “four” and insert “twelve”

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, there are two clear issues to consider in relation to this clause. The first is whether there is a case for an expiry of mandate and about the timing. The second is the most extraordinary own goal and, I suspect, the most unwanted measure in this part of the Bill: the abandonment of the requirement for some sort of action within 28 days. The evidence is clear that most disputes settle within or around 28 days of a ballot result, with the requirement for some action to be taken by the end of that period. It makes no sense, particularly in the private sector, to prolong that to four months. It would create uncertainty in a system that we have operated for a substantial period to have a ballot and then the action described in that ballot, whether it is on the ballot paper or not, taking up to four months rather than 28 days.
	Our concern over the proposals is helpfully explained by the impact assessment, which states:
	“We have not been able to quantify how this time limit will affect the number of working days lost to strike action, since we do not have data to reliably estimate the number of strikes across the whole economy which occur more than 4 months after the result of a ballot”.
	So the Government have no idea what the effects of this change will be for industrial relations. It also notes that under current law it is for the courts to determine,
	“whether a ballot mandate is still valid and that includes assessing whether there has been a substantial interruption in the industrial action”.
	It is important to note that there is no freedom at the moment for a union to invoke, simply out of the blue, a ballot result from years ago. That is not the current situation.
	One point that the Government have raised in support of having a four-month time limit, to which they refer in passing in the impact assessment and which was raised in Committee in the Commons, is that staff turnover means that not exactly the same group of employees will be there one or two years on from the date of the ballot. If the Government use this line today, and the Minister picks it up, it is worth being aware that any statistics for staff turnover that they cite in making this point tend to be for all employees, including those in non-unionised workplaces, in which staff turnover is significantly higher. In unionised workplaces turnover is significantly lower. The most recent ONS data covering 2014 show that across union members, 92.5% have more than a year’s service in their job. So the argument that staff turnover after just four months should invalidate a ballot, irrespective of the views of the remainder of the workforce who voted in it, is weak.
	The Government’s argument is that 12 months is too long to live with uncertainty. The simple fact is that the Bill is constantly creating longer periods of uncertainty. An unresolved dispute is an uncertainty. Talks and negotiations are far better than strike action. The four-month limit just provides for a prolonged series of processes that will keep that uncertainty. Attrition does not seem a modern approach to effective management and employee-employer relationships.
	The Government are introducing a time a limit for ballot mandates in reaction to specific things, particularly in the public sector, but there is no relationship in this to real life and the real industrial relations situation in the economy as a whole. If the Bill becomes law, unions will no longer be required to start industrial action within the first four weeks. Where a dispute remains unresolved after four months, unions will have to ballot again. Again, this will create uncertainty. If there are difficult negotiations, why are we saying that we should take employers and unions up to the top of the hill again within four months? If this is the process that the Minister wants, we will end up with a situation in which unions will not be able to have a positive influence and will not be able to ensure that after people have been marched up to the top of the hill they can be marched down again.
	We see evidence of that at the moment in the Government’s approach to industrial relations in the health service. They inflict a situation on people in which positions become entrenched. Industrial relations are about reaching amicable settlements. Negotiations are about bringing two parties together. Industrial action and the threat of it occasionally help to bring those two sides together. Some of the proposals in this Bill will have completely the opposite effect to what they are apparently intended to have.
	The Government cite the basis for legislation on this as being due to the cases where unions have threatened strike action on ballots that took place over a year ago. I suspect I know the examples that the Minister will cite, but can she give me specific examples? How many are there beyond the four cases mentioned in the impact assessment? How many are there in the private sector and how many in the public sector? We need to know the evidence before we simply take on board these measures.
	The main focus of this proposal appears to be public sector disputes. Instead of worrying about four-month mandates and whether mandates have been exhausted, perhaps we should have more focus on negotiations. One of the main reasons for protracted disputes has been the Government’s refusal to negotiate. The TUC, in its statements on the Bill, believes that rather than imposing additional restrictions on workers’ abilities to strike, the Government should seek to engage in genuine negotiations—that is something that should happen, very importantly today, in the health service. Does the Minister agree that rather than imposing restrictions, she should be arguing for constructive negotiations? What efforts are the Government making to facilitate better union/employer relationships?
	I come back to the point made by my noble friend: this is a Trade Union Bill. It can focus only on trade unions. Unfortunately, it cannot recognise that the reality of life is two sides negotiating and coming together. I believe this clause will create substantial legal and administrative costs for unions, which will be forced to reballot instead of working hard to seek a negotiated settlement. Unions estimate that they spend at least £1 per member on ballots, and the postage costs of member communications alone are substantial. The Government’s impact assessment states that familiarisation with the new balloting rules will cost unions more than £500,000 in the first instance. I suspect most of that will go to lawyers, who get heavily engaged in industrial relations. As many of us know, when you bring lawyers into a situation it ends up in prolonged difficulties, rather than mutually agreed negotiations.
	In some cases, these proposals could create an incentive for employers to sit out a dispute rather than engage in genuine negotiations, so it could reward bad employers. Unions will perhaps feel pressurised to organise earlier industrial action to avoid the cost of reballoting. It could end up with unions ensuring that they tick the box and take the action to avoid coming into conflict with the law, adding to conflict rather than seeking mutually agreed settlements.
	Amendment 35 extends the ballot mandate from four to 12 months. At present, unions are required to start industrial action within 28 days, but they can agree with employers to suspend proposed action to allow more time for negotiations. If talks break down, the union can take action. Will the Minister indicate why the Bill does not include an equivalent provision? If there is not that sort of provision, the consequence of these clauses will be to force industrial action, which is what we are seeking to avoid.
	Amendments 36 and 37 probe the date by which the four-month period is due to begin. I know it is not a vital issue, but when would the four-month period start? Is it the date of the ballot? What is the date of the ballot? Is it the date it opens or the date it closes? I can see that these things will become critical when action needs to be taken at the end of a period, and then we will end up with legal challenges. It can make a significant difference to the period in which action may be taken. The beginning of the end of a ballot period is over two weeks, and you could end up with this uncertainty for a number of weeks.
	The four-month limit in Clause 8 imposes a far shorter window. No action may be taken until a fortnight into the dispute, and after two months, if the dispute is ongoing, the union’s thoughts will inevitably turn to that ticking clock. It will be thinking that, before the end of the four months, instead of going to negotiations, perhaps it should better start preparing for the next industrial action ballot. So the period for negotiations is far shorter. At the end of the day, it is about what brings two sides together. There is no doubt that, in any negotiations, loss and costs are an important factor.
	There is another way in which this clause might make industrial relations worse. Since it leaves the union with a short window in which to take action before it needs to reballot, it incentivises the union to take significant action to force the employer’s hand in a short period of time. Of course, balloting is an expensive process, especially when it has to be carried out by post, so unions will be keen to avoid this. For this reason, they will be under pressure from their members not to hold back in disputes. Have the Government really thought through all the consequences of these clauses, or are they simply a reaction to some of those four cases that I referred to earlier? The Minister has to give us the Government’s assessment of how the current deadlines affect a dispute; that would be useful to know. Why are the Government denying employers and unions the ability to agree to extend the deadline that they are imposing in Clause 8?
	Why not allow negotiations to take place? Surely this seems a logical and beneficial step for both sides of any dispute. I beg to move.

Lord Morris of Handsworth: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Collins has drawn attention to the mandate and its expiry. In particular, he mentioned that a starting point of 28 days could possibly get up to about four months, depending on the circumstances and on the parties to the dispute and what action they may or may not take. The debate on this particular clause assumes that nothing changes during the period of notice. I think that that assumption is a luxurious one because I know of no dispute where nothing changes over three or four months.
	What it really demands is a shift in objective. When you have a dispute, the issue is not about how long you maintain the dispute—either through statutory provisions or, indeed, bad personal relationships. The essence of the parties is, in fact, to try to find a solution to the dispute. What is depressing about this debate is that I have not heard the word “settlement” from either side—although primarily this is a government Bill. They took the initiative and are seeking to use their mandate to change the framework for the settlement of industrial disputes. But they have not used the word “settlement”. It is all about dates and the behaviour of one party or another.
	I believe that if we are to construct an industrial relations framework that meets the modern demands of industry and, more importantly, society, we have to deal with it on a comprehensive basis—not just a piecemeal basis or saying how many months or days we mean. Nothing has been said about the instruments or the structures, and nothing has been said about arbitration or conciliation. Indeed, we will be told that negotiation is a matter for the parties. I understand that but we must have a Government who facilitate and persuade, because ultimately they are the Government and they have responsibility for maintaining not just law and order but an economy which is responsive to the ups and downs of consumers’ requirements, meeting all needs.
	I trust that before very long the Minister will find some way of coming back to this House and indicating how we can have negotiations and discussions, even during the notice period. If the Bill is to be worthy of anything, it has to be tested on whether it reduces periods of industrial dispute time-wise and frequency- wise. That is the only way in which we can guarantee continuous growth in our economy and an improvement in the quality of life of all our citizens.

Lord Deben: My Lords, I have listened to the debates on the last three amendments and have noticed a crucial fact. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, spoke of both sides of industry and the Government, and the noble Lord who spoke earlier talked about both sides of industry, but no one has spoken about the customers—the people who suffer because of a strike. I have sat through debates on trade union legislation ever since the Government of Edward Heath and what distresses me is that we still do not talk about the consumer or the customer—the person out there—upon whom both employer and employee depend for their future, their wages and their profits. I do not believe that strikes are about two sides; inevitably they are about three sets of people. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, admitted, a strike operates through pressure on the public. We also know that there are more strikes—at least more damaging strikes, as far as we can see—which attack the public as the mechanism for achieving their ends. If the railwaymen strike or the public sector strikes, it is the public against whom they are striking.
	I make no comment about which of the two sides is more right than the other; there are appalling employers and there are pretty dreadful actions by trade unions. I am not in any way biased on this matter. As Members opposite know, I have had some significant concerns about this Bill and previous Bills, but I do think that somebody has to speak up for the customer. The amendment we are discussing suggests that it is acceptable to the customer to be told that a strike will take place based on a ballot that has taken place nine months before. To me, that seems unacceptable. Trade unions and employers should take seriously that they should not impose upon the public, upon whom they depend, that kind of, frankly, pretty random and arbitrary action.

Lord Lea of Crondall: I go back to Ted Heath and 1971 and 1972, as the noble Lord does. I think it is unnecessary to use over-the-top language such as “striking against the public”. Take the present dispute of junior hospital doctors. If you meet any of them, do they think that they are striking against the public? No, of course not. There is obviously a nuance—to put it mildly—between whether you are talking about the Secretary of State being the public or somebody else being the employer, or the issue of how many hours a week are being worked or whether you work on Saturdays and so on and so forth. It is not helpful to have this characterisation. Even though the metaphor of the two sides of industry is a well-known one, it is open to interpretation.

Lord Deben: It would obviously be unsuitable for me to make any comment whatsoever about the current strike, given my relationships. Therefore, I will keep away from that. However, I will take on very clearly the point that the noble Lord has made. One cannot possibly suggest that a railway strike is effective if it does not affect the railway passengers. To say, “I am striking but I do not mean to upset the passengers” is really a metaphor without meaning. The staff are striking because they do mean to upset the passengers, because that is the only way they think they can bring their case properly to the eyes of whichever British transport company is concerned. I do not in any way want to make the noble Lord unhappy, but one of the problems is that we pretend. We should not pretend: the purpose of a strike is to cause inconvenience in order that the management of whatever it is should give way.

Lord Collins of Highbury: I just want to correct the idea that nobody is concerned about the consequences of industrial action. Of course we are; all sides are very concerned. The evidence before us is that, in the day-to-day life of industrial relations, strikes are a matter of last resort. The evidence shows that most industrial action ballots result not in strike action but in speedier negotiations. In relation to this clause, does the noble Lord think it would help the process to have a continuous run of industrial action ballots if the negotiations have not been concluded within four months? The problem is that the negotiation period will move. It will not be four months and then a ballot; it will be before then. Will that help the speedy conclusion of negotiations?

Lord Deben: First, I did not accuse anybody of not caring about the passenger or the customer. I merely pointed out that in all the speeches I have heard from the other side nobody mentioned these people, so I cannot believe it is front-of-mind; I cannot believe that it is actually there. The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, whom I listened to with great care, and respect considerably, suggested that she had a suspicion about the nature of these proposals. The suspicion was that they were not really about improving industrial relations, but were in some way of a party-political kind. Of course, we can all have our suspicions. I have a suspicion that people who do not mention the customers or the passengers or the rest are not as interested in them as they are in the trades unions themselves—

Lord Oates: Would the noble Lord accept on this point that many of us are opposed to most of the measures in this Bill precisely because we think it will be entirely counterproductive to good industrial relations—that it will lead to more action and more problems to the public? It is for exactly that reason that we opposed this unnecessary Bill in the coalition, and we will continue to oppose it here.

Lord Deben: I fear I have to say to the noble Lord that I am much older than he is. I remember exactly that argument—exactly that case—demanding that we should not have ballots, that it would extend the time that it would take to get rid of industrial disputes, that it was unnecessary to have them by post, and that it was perfectly possible to do all these things in the old-fashioned way. The very party that presented those arguments would not dream—well, I hope it would not dream, even under the present circumstances—of abolishing those things, yet the arguments all the way through were exactly the same as we have now. That does not mean to say that this Bill is a good Bill, or that this Bill is right. What it does mean is that many reasonable, centrist politicians—and I am one of them—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Deben: If the noble Lords opposite do not think that, they had better have a few words with some of the Conservative associations in Britain. Simply speaking, it means that some of us who are reasonable and sensible about this do not immediately take for granted that every criticism of that sort may be true. That is the only position I am trying to put. I am asking some fundamental questions of the arguments that have been put forward opposite.

Lord Oates: I cannot account for the arguments that other people made a long time ago; as the noble Lord rightly states, I was rather younger then than I am now. When noble Lords on these Benches were dealing with these matters and bringing in laws—whatever he says, they were were rules that I did not propose and never have—they were bringing them in to address a problem. This is a Bill that is a solution to a problem that is not there. If you look at the days lost to industrial action and the incredibly responsible behaviour of the trade unions during a period of unprecedented austerity, you will see that there is a difference. There was a big problem that they had to tackle, whereas this is a solution in search of a problem.

Lord Deben: I hoped that I was addressing this with a certain degree of care. I do not want to enter into the argument as to whether trade unions or employers have behaved in one way or another. I believe that industrial action from time to time is necessary. I have never disagreed with that. But it seems to me important—I think the party opposite agrees—that this should in fact be the last resort: you do not have industrial action unless you really need to have it. I hope that one of the reasons the party thinks that, although it has not referred to it, is that it inconveniences—and more than inconveniences—the public as a whole. It is not unreasonable to think seriously about some of the things that can be done to ensure that people are careful about this. That is on both sides; I do not suggest anything other than that.
	It seems reasonable to say that you do not call a ballot unless you really need to have industrial action, and it is unlikely that the circumstances four months later or thereafter will be the same as when the ballot was held. That is the point that the noble Lord who spoke last put forward. I am afraid that that does not support his case; it supports my case. If there have been significant changes in those four months, it does not seem reasonable to rely on a ballot that took place in entirely different circumstances. You should have a ballot close to the point at which the industrial action is taken. I think that four months is rather a long time. A week is a long time in politics and four months is a long time in industrial relations. There are other things in the Bill that I am not very happy about, but this proposal seems perfectly reasonable.

Lord Collins of Highbury: The Bill removes the requirement to take industrial action within 28 days. Does the noble Lord think that that is correct? That is what it will do: take 28 days out and say four months. That will not aid the process. I accept what the noble Lord said about strikes being a matter of last resort and that they are to be avoided, but on industrial action ballots the Government should not try to interfere with industrial relations in the way they have. The fact is that the most leverage a union has on an employer is not the industrial action it takes, but the mandate achieved through industrial action ballots.

Lord Deben: I give way regularly because I much prefer debate in this House. I do not much like the system that we have where you put down your name to speak and then nobody ever interrupts you; I always thought that that is not of as much interest and I am all in favour of changing it. I have given way, but I will not be led astray on to other issues. The issue I put forward is very simple: it does not seem sensible to rely on a ballot that took place more than four months ago to take industrial action, given that the change in circumstances may well be considerable, as the noble Lord said. That is why I would like to hear more about the customer and the fact that we ought to rely on a system where people know, with some immediacy, what the question is, vote on it and then take action.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Deben that strikes are, on the whole, to be avoided. The question is whether Clause 8, which I am talking about, not the Bill as a whole, assists in the removal of strike action or industrial action. The union has a very strong mandate once it succeeds in a ballot, assuming that that is how things develop. Therefore, it is important that the time given by that is not unnecessarily restricted. If progress is to be made in eliminating the need for a strike, it will be at its best after the union gets a mandate to have industrial action, if it is necessary. This is a critical period for the success of negotiations. One can see that negotiations sometimes take some time. They may progress rather slowly, but if they progress at all they are worth taking. I think very much of the customers, passengers or whatever affected by strike action. That is something the Bill should aim to reduce. Therefore, once a mandate has been given by a ballot, it should be worked out so far as possible.
	It could be, of course, that negotiations come to a halt in these four months and the employer decides he is not going to do any more about it. On the other hand, it is perfectly possible that considerable progress may be made in these four months. Is it right to call an arbitrary halt to progress, if it is taking place, after four months? I suggest to my noble friend that it is worth considering whether this period should be subject to extension by agreement with the parties. If progress is good and the trade union is in the best possible position, having had a mandate from its members in accordance with these rules, is it right or wise arbitrarily to bring that period of probably the most effective time for negotiations to an end?
	I agree with my noble friend that, of course, circumstances may be very different after four months. On the other hand, it is possible that they will be different in the sense of being more favourable to a settlement than they were at the beginning of the four months. Is it right, therefore, arbitrarily to throw that opportunity away? I suggest for consideration the possibility of the employer being able to extend the period if it looks as though that will ultimately reduce the necessity for a strike altogether.
	I am also interested in the connection between new subsection (2D) inserted by Clause 4—the notice about the period—and the period in which the industrial action may take place, which comes under Clause 8. This being Committee, I strongly suggest to the Minister that that could be looked into. Very often, getting a ballot mandate has an effect during negotiations. The employer will not, I hope, be insensitive to that improvement. It is a very clear declaration of the attitude of the proper majority of the employees to the matters in dispute.

Lord Morris of Handsworth: My Lords, just for the record, I have been misquoted. I did not argue the case for four months; what I said is that my noble friend Lord Collins drew attention to the fact that the expiry date has drifted, or will drift, from 28 days up to four months. The record will show that.

Lord Jordan: My Lords, I apologise for being unable, through my own fault, to speak at Second Reading. I give general support to this group of amendments, and to Amendment 38 in particular. It is a positive amendment to a Bill that has little positive about it. It is designed to delay and decrease the likelihood of industrial action starting and gives an incentive to both sides to keep talking without disadvantage to either.
	The Bill ought to have been about resolving disputes, not about organising them. My noble friend Lord Lea mentioned the junior doctors today on strike. They are not the usual suspects when we think about strikers. We have heard lots of statistics about the overwhelming number of workers who have never been on strike, and, for those who have, how it was, for them, once in a lifetime. There are times when people do things they do not want to do, believing that there is no other way. No workplace is immune to this dilemma; not even this Chamber. How many noble Lords did not want to vote against the Government on benefits cuts? But they did, believing there was no other way to answer a Government who were neither listening nor prepared to do the right thing. Every single day, in countless workplaces, decent men and women encounter petty but sometimes serious injustices. Most times they take it and carry on working. But there are times, as your Lordships know, when you have to take a stand. If laws are needed when the working relationship breaks down, they should help to repair that relationship. This Bill does not.
	This amendment is a simple, small step to making a bad situation better. It provides a mutual opportunity for a second chance to resolve a dispute. This is a chance for second thoughts about finding a solution to what is, by then, an entrenched conflict. This is not only what businesses want; it is what customers, the consumers of their products, want. I urge support for this amendment. Let us test the Government’s ability to be sensible.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I declare an interest as a retired member of Unite. I joined my first trade union in 1943 as a youth in training on the Post Office telephones, so I have a bit of experience that I can share with the noble Lord, Lord Deben.
	I give support to these amendments and, in particular, to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who spoke about consultation. That is always much better than confrontation. Throughout my life I have been involved in trade union activities. When I worked for the CEGB
	I was secretary of the local advisory council and a member of the regional and national advisory councils, so I have been around trade unionism for a very long time. I was always impressed at amendments that were put into the gas and electricity Bills at the time—I think they were moved by Mr Mikardo, who was then MP for Reading—which made provision for consultation. Since I took part in that consultation, I know that it works.
	The power station in which I worked had previously been owned by the Wessex Electricity Company. It was not used to consultation. When the company was nationalised, and the law said that there should be consultation, it had to embark upon it. I helped it to do so. It was a long, hard job but in the end consultation does work. Certainly, in my time the people I represented never needed to go for strike action or go-slow action, because we had the patience to do so.
	That is what the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and these amendments are talking about: patience, consultation and understanding. The noble Lord, Lord Jordan, was general secretary of one of the trade unions to which I used to belong and knows his stuff as far as trade unionism is concerned. I just wanted to say those few words to support the idea that consultation works. This Bill is not consultation, it is confrontation and confrontation never works. It only causes disaster, both to the employers and the workers themselves.
	The noble Lord, Lord Deben, had a lot of interruptions —I felt sorry for him, really, but he can take it; he has been around a long time. He was absolutely right to talk about the customer. The customer in this case is wronged by strike action. But he must not imagine that the customer is always against the striker. I can assure him that when we had the miners’ strikes in the 1970s, people were queuing up to accommodate the striking miners in their own homes. Indeed, according to the opinion polls, two-thirds of the public support the junior doctors. The public are not always against strikes, although they often are. But I support the amendments and I think that on the whole this is a very foolish Bill.

Baroness Burt of Solihull: My Lords, this group of Labour amendments, particularly Amendment 38, seeks to inject a further term of flexibility into the period of time before which a mandate might ultimately expire. Currently there is no ultimate time limit but, as has already been said, any reasonable trade union would wish to ensure that it still had the full support of its members before setting a date for strike action to take place. The problem with deadlines is that they up the ante. The pressure on both employers and trade unions is to achieve a resolution, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, indicated.
	Amendment 35 seeks to substitute a 12-month mandate for the four months suggested by the Government. It is very difficult to know whether 12 months would be any more suitable because every trade union dispute is different. To me, 12 months feels too long—but what is the right period of time? Labour Amendment 38 addresses this in what seems a very reasonable way: the period of the mandate can be renewed every three months where the employer and the union have a mutual agreement to that effect. Again, this injects an important element of flexibility and would stop the race towards meeting the four-month deadline, which could result in a nuclear option being exercised by the trade union—or, indeed, the employer.
	It seems somewhat ironic that this Government purport to want to devolve power and decision-making but here they are being prescriptive in a way that is very likely to exacerbate the breakdown in employer/trade union relations rather than enable the business of negotiation to proceed in a smooth way. Neither employers nor trade unions will benefit from the setting of an arbitrary four-month mandate. We want more “talk, talk” not “walk, walk”, particularly because, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and several other noble Lords have mentioned, the customer is going to be disadvantaged.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: My Lords, we have discussed at length the problems that are caused by old ballot mandates. For public credibility we must move away from having an indefinite period, with or without the agreement of the employer. As an example, the NASUWT took industrial action on 17 October 2013 based on a mandate secured in November 2011, almost two years earlier. The PCS held a strike on 15 October 2014 based on a mandate from March 2013.
	My noble friend Lord Deben made the important point about the three sets of people affected. He rightly emphasised the customer—the passenger, in my first example—and the public, who are affected as a result of disruption on an out-of-date mandate. That is why Clause 8 specifies that a ballot mandate must have an expiry date. This means that there will no longer be a prolonged period of uncertainty. That will benefit everyone.
	In deciding how long a mandate should last, we have sought to provide a balance. On the one hand we have removed the uncertainty that can hang over employers’ heads for years. On the other hand we have provided a reasonable amount of time for constructive negotiations. The question then is what period would be appropriate to deliver that balance.
	We have proposed four months. I have listened carefully and with great interest to the arguments put forward by noble Lords on all sides of the House. I have heard some good arguments for a period of longer than four months. Some are resistant to that. Nevertheless I remain concerned that a period of 12 months would tip the balance far too far in favour of unions, to the detriment of others. That would mean that employers would still have the threat of a strike hanging over them for a considerable length of time. That does not help to create a stable and certain environment for business. Nor is it good for union members. They need certainty about the period during which they may be asked to take industrial action, particularly given the consequential effect on their pay and their families.
	Another important point on which my noble friend Lord Deben also touched is that people’s views about a dispute can change over time. It is only right that the union checks back with its members to see whether they still support the industrial action. This is why I have a concern about Amendments 38 and 39.
	They suggest that the union and employer could agree between themselves to extend the mandate, either indefinitely or for, say, three months, without reballoting members to see whether they agree. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay commented on this. Such a rolling and continuing mandate would also affect the wider public, and we should think about that in the balance as well.
	Finally, in relation to Amendment 36, I am pleased to assure the House that it is not necessary to make it clear that the four-month time period begins on the last day of voting. The date of the ballot is already defined in Section 246 of the 1992 Act as the last day of voting in the ballot.
	The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked why we should remove the 28-day initial action period. It is no longer necessary—I think that he came to this conclusion himself—because the ballot mandate will be limited to four months and this will increase the time available for dialogue so that strike action is averted where possible. We want strikes to be a matter of last resort. I hope that I have understood his point correctly.

Lord Collins of Highbury: Just for clarity, the purpose of the 28 days is to ensure—whatever the rights and wrongs—that industrial action ballots are a matter of last resort. My point was that industrial action ballots, as the noble and learned Lord noted, themselves become the leverage. They strengthen the union’s position. Unions were quite quick to learn that the bad old days did not produce results. The reforms—and I shall call them reforms—ensured that mandates were far more secure. They have more authority and are, therefore, far more effective. My problem with the proposition in this clause is that they become a regular thing. By removing the 28 days, they are no longer the precursor to industrial action, while inserting every four months leads to the situation where unions will have to get their members to vote for the mandate not just at the end of four months but clearly before that. This will prolong the uncertainty and make matters worse.
	I come back to the point that this is about how we support two sides in negotiations. I am not ignoring the impact of disputes, but at the end of the day what will stop a dispute is the two sides reaching an agreement. The current situation is far better, and I fear that the proposals in this clause will potentially lead to uncertainty for a much longer period. The noble and learned Lord made the extremely good point that the strike ballot mandate can become an important element in reaching an agreement. Is it not then appropriate and sensible that the two sides, instead of being forced to come apart again and ballot, can agree mutually to extend that period so that the focus is on negotiations rather than on a strike?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: I thank the noble Lord for his measured response. I agree with the point that was made about trade unions doing good things. It was good to see the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, joining the debate and reminding us of all the workers who never go on strike and to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, talking about the importance of consultation.
	We discussed some of the positives about unions in our very good curtain-raising debate last November, which I certainly found extremely useful for getting me into the subject.
	We still need to tackle the question of out-of-date ballots, however, which can lead to industrial action long after people have made up their minds. That is a problem we are seeking to address in this legislation and in this clause. However, this has been an important debate this evening, and I would like to take some time to reflect on the points that have been made. The length of the mandate and extension by agreement seem to be the two things that have come through in the discussion.

Lord Collins of Highbury: It is important, before we come back to these issues, to note that when we make legislation, it should be evidence-based. I know that we have these four cases that are often quoted, and the impact assessment, but has the Minister’s department properly examined what goes on in the private sector? Is there a difference between the private sector and the public sector? What is the norm for industrial action ballots? I think the vast majority of industrial action ballots in the private sector result in negotiations without industrial action. If that is the case, could the department do a proper assessment? The unintended consequence of this measure could be that the process of negotiations is interrupted, to have a strike ballot to ensure that the negotiations continue. Strike ballots are not a neutral process: they are about members winding themselves up and saying, “We have a strong case and we’re not going to resist it”. The constant referral to a strike ballot will, in my opinion, harden views not soften them. It will not aid negotiations.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: My Lords, I have listened to what has been said and, as your Lordships know, have already wound up. We have some information on what has happened in the private sector and I am very happy to have a conversation with the noble Lord before we get to the next stage. We also have some very good examples, mainly in the public sector, as the noble Lord says, where these out-of-date strike ballots have been enormously damaging. That remains the case, but of course we can talk further. My door is always open, as I have said so many times.

Lord Collins of Highbury: I assume the Minister is asking me to withdraw my amendment, but I repeat that this is an issue we will have to come back to. As we have heard in this debate, there is a consensus across the board, from all sides, that we have to be careful here not to hinder the process of negotiation. We need to ensure that it is supported. However, in the light of the assurances about having further discussions, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
	Amendment 35 withdrawn.
	Amendments 36 to 40 not moved.
	Clause 8 agreed.
	Clause 9: Union supervision of picketing
	Amendment 41
	 Moved by Lord Stoneham of Droxford
	41: Clause 9, page 4, leave out lines 36 to 38 and insert—
	“(1) In order to facilitate a picket under section 220, a trade union may choose to take the actions specified in subsections (2) to (8).
	(1A) Failure to take actions specified in subsections (2) to (8) does not make any picket conducted under section 220 unlawful.”

Lord Stoneham of Droxford: My Lords, I emphasise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that strikes are not happy situations. They are very much the last resort, they are obviously unpopular with customers and they are often a sign of failure. In these situations, you can get examples of relations breaking down and intimidation. That is part of what is a pressured relationship and part of tough negotiations. Intimidation itself is unacceptable, but there are various strains of it that you have to accept in tough negotiations and in a pressurised situation. There will be that sort of experience.
	I have experience of picketing from both sides of industry. In my youth, I helped organise pickets in the railway industry. As I got older and became a manager in a very difficult industry—the print industry—I had to deal with pickets at my gate, once with a two-week dispute with a print union and then again with a 12-week dispute with journalists. Both occasions were harrowing and very sad experiences that caused damage to relationships which took a long time to overcome, although I am glad to say we did overcome it.
	I have a number of points to make. Orderly picketing requires the commitment and co-operation of unions. It is often not understood that unions play a very important role not only in managing relationships in industry but in containing conflict when it breaks out. Orderly picketing is very important. We are not these days, I am glad to say, talking about the sort of pickets that we had at Wapping, at Eddie Shah’s Messenger Group or at the Saltley coke works during the miners’ strike. We now have a very clear definition of what peaceful picketing is, backed up by a code of practice, because it is very difficult to define and order relationships when they have broken down. That is what we have had for nearly 25 years, and we have to ask ourselves whether what is being proposed is better than what we have after the progress we have made. That is open to question: in fact I think that the road we are going down will be very damaging.
	I remind the House that the definition of peaceful picketing allows picketing at a place of work only by employees who work or have worked there and that there are strict limits and guidance on the number of pickets and how they should behave. That is largely defined in the code. What we are doing here is turning aspects of the code into a statutory requirement. We have to ask whether that is going to be beneficial. The Government have already had certain second thoughts on aspects of this in the Commons. I do not know where the idea that you could give 14 days’ notice of using social media and how you were going to use it came from, but it was pretty idiotic. I am glad that has gone. Similarly, the idea of having arm-bands for all the pickets.
	Let us remember when we had problems with picketing. I have some experience of it. The criminal law is available when there is genuine intimidation, aggressive behaviour or trespass, but if you use it, it can inflame matters. That is why having a code of practice is so much better particularly when, at the end of the day, it is about resolving a dispute and getting both sides round the table and back at work. The more pickets are inflamed, the more difficult that is to do and the more bitterness ensues.
	In this country we recognise that we have a right to protest peacefully and picketing is a form of that—a way of putting your case. If you define the statutory rights of picketing too closely, there is a very strong argument that you could deter responsible trade union activists from taking part in the picket line to try to keep discipline and control. We know there is a danger of the state monitoring of union activists if the police are overinvolved. But there is a more important issue about the police. They do not like getting involved in these sorts of disputes and prefer to keep aside unless they are really needed. I think they believe that their involvement should be the exception, not the rule.
	I go back to my point about the voluntary code combined with a clear definition of picketing being better than trying to make more clauses of the voluntary code statutory. I know we will go back to the old argument as to whether we should have “may or “must”. The Minister and I have had discussions before where we were arguing for “must” and she was arguing for “may”. I am going down the route of “may” rather than “must” this time to make the point that maintaining the voluntary code is very important.
	I go back to the question: what proof is there that we need to go down this route? In the last few weeks, I have read the Carr report, which I think the Government have tried to base quite a lot of evidence on. I read it very carefully. It is a very odd report because its terms of reference changed half-way through, mainly because the lawyer involved was concerned that just before the general election was a very political time to carry it out. I have also looked at the consultation we have had on intimidation. The evidence in both those reports is pretty weak.
	The Carr report makes it absolutely clear that, if there is outrageous behaviour, the criminal law can follow up and deal with issues if necessary. Often the actions are on both sides. The employer can provoke the situation and individuals—people in the picket line or those driving through or crossing it—can be equally abusive. The situation is very difficult to contain and control and that is why the unions are very important in this process and their co-operation is vital. In many of the disputes in the Carr report the unions have lost control. This is due to inexperience. In one case it was because there were very difficult racial issues involved. That is why having a clear legal definition of how peaceful picketing can happen, combined with the code is very important.
	I want to ask the Minister three questions. First, does she accept that the co-operation of the established unions in maintaining order on picket lines is critical and, therefore, it is worth trying to keep that co-operation? Secondly, is she not concerned that further legal action will encourage unions to distance themselves from the work they currently do in controlling the existence and behaviour of pickets? Thirdly, what is the degree of the problem, given that we know that disputes are down? Inevitably, there are examples of difficulty on picket lines. It is not surprising with human nature being what it is, and individuals in a very emotional state, that you will get problems from time to time. What convinces her that the voluntary code combined with a clear legal definition of peaceful picketing is not adequate to maintain good relationships? Does this really warrant a completely new approach, which could undermine all the good work and progress we have made in industrial relations over the last 25 years since those horrendous examples of picketing we had in the 1980s and early 1990s?
	Public support in disputes is always very important: we are seeing that with the doctors’ dispute at the moment. People underestimate the degree to which the unions have to work to keep that public support. That is why they do not want, any more than anybody else, violence, intimidation or misbehaviour on picket lines. That is why they put a lot of resources into making sure that the behaviour is, on the whole, acceptable and in the public interest. I beg to move.

Lord Monks: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham. I ask the same question about this and about certain other aspects of the Bill. What is the problem? If you ask the police whether picketing is high on their list of concerns, the answer will be no. They are not bothered beyond turning up, having a word with the pickets, seeing that things are okay and saying that if there is any trouble they will be back. That is it. If there is any trouble, they are back. That is the way I have known pickets working over the years in a decent relationship with the police: a wise word, a kind word, a firm word, just to make sure that people know what they are doing and what they can do.
	The code of practice is a good guide in many ways. It has a bit of flexibility. For example, the normal maximum that the law aims for is six pickets. If there happen to be seven there and the police turn up, would they make a big issue of it? They would not. It would be different if there were a lot more. So I say we should stick to the code of practice—it has been found to be rather successful. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, said: a picket can be a difficult exercise for a union, especially when tempers are running high and little things inflame because they are set down rigidly in concrete in the statute law of the United Kingdom. I think that really is doing the wrong thing.
	The Carr report, to which reference was made, was basically about leveraging. The concept was that you could turn up outside somebody’s house, golf club or whatever and embarrass the boss who was being hard-faced and difficult. That is not picketing. That is some sort of demonstration. Picketing, as was said, is allowed only at or near the place of work for the purposes of peaceful persuasion of the case of those on the picket line. I do not accept that they are the same thing. I could not find any evidence in the impact assessment of any problems on the picketing front. In fact, somewhere it says that there are no problems with the conduct of pickets. It goes straight into leveraging, the Carr report and bits of his creative writing.
	We are aware that the provisions are strongly criticised by a range of civil liberties organisations, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which say that they may be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights and so on. I do not want to get too much into that at this stage, because I am trying to adopt a common-sense, pragmatic approach. The code of practice is working, because it has a bit of give, flexibility and scope for the police, union officials and others in a way that putting things in statute does not.
	The National Police Chiefs’ Council said that the provisions could waste police resources and are unnecessary as this is not a problem and that they have enough pressures on them without having to enforce a new statute in this area. If you are making a change, you need some good reasons for it and I do not think the Government have any. I very much support the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt.

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, the gist of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, is to render the provisions of the clause optional. Let me read a few extracts from the evidence to the Carr review, to which he referred, to demonstrate why that would be undesirable. It refers to disputes at London Underground Limited and Transport for London from 2012 to 2014:
	“TfL has described the atmosphere and conduct of picket lines as sometimes being intimidating to non-striking staff”.
	TfL cited the following alleged examples: alcohol being consumed by a picket; the picket obstructing public access to the station; verbal abuse in strong terms; swearing and shouting; and a conviction for assault, overturned on appeal only because the police failed to submit CCTV evidence to the court.
	In the fire and rescue services disputes from 2010 and 2013-14, examples cited include a mass picket listening to speeches made by union officials, one of whom is saying: “Tell” them,
	“that we will follow them wherever and whenever they come into London. And we will be sending them a message saying get out of London and do not come back”.
	There are allegations of the use of social media to intimidate non-striking firefighters, station gates padlocked and crews’ cars blocking forecourts, and private security guards abused and bucketed with water from roof level. The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, says that we have to put up with some intimidation. I do not think that we should put up with that sort of intimidation.
	The CBI states:
	“The current status of the picketing Code of Practice does not provide a great enough incentive for trade union members to remain within the prescribed guidelines … CBI members have witnessed trade union activity that falls foul of the current guidelines in recent years”—
	particularly with the advent of social media.
	“Business supports the proposals to make parts of the Code legally enforceable. The CBI would … like to see the government go further and reasonably transpose the entire Code. The requirement to appoint a picket supervisor, as set out in Clause 9, provides a single point of contact—with a working understanding of the code—for the duration of the strike action … Legally requiring the appointment of a picket supervisor will uphold the Code on the picket line, reducing incidences of poor practice”.
	The amendments seem inappropriate.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, for the points he made; I agree very much with them. It shows once again that when someone is speaking with direct experience of industry—on both sides—of his memories of occasions of industrial and commercial disruption and dispute, it helps this House in its deliberations on this Bill.
	Notwithstanding the comments of the noble Lord who has just spoken, what particularly concerned the public in London was the strikes on London Underground. One can understand that: they can affect millions of people in their daily routine and are therefore a very serious matter. While I was concerned at the time that the unions might be overreaching themselves and making proposals that were going to be too difficult, I was concerned also about the other side of the picture, which was the hysterical approach of the only evening paper in London, the Evening Standard. It automatically and immediately condemned the unions without explaining in detail the reasons for the action, just saying that they were being irresponsible. There was the notion that for some reason there was an obligation on those unions never to strike or take industrial action, even if they were genuinely concerned about many underlying matters of the operations of London Transport, including safety considerations, which I think were uppermost in many trade union officials’ minds. That never got a hearing or any coverage in the Evening Standard, which was, apart from other free sheets, the only regional newspaper that one could get in London.
	That was the general background, and I think it is therefore in the folk memory when it comes to industrial relations that there is an extra special obligation in the public sector and that, particularly with transport, it is selfish for any industrial action to take place. Driverless trains is a separate matter that needs to come back on to the agenda.
	Notwithstanding that, the priority should surely be to have a balance in industrial relations provisions of legislation. I was very pleased when, at Second Reading, the Minister referred in her remarks opening the debate to the question of picketing, and said:
	“The Bill also makes an obligation of the appointment of a picket supervisor. This requirement is already in the code of picketing, which has been followed without difficulty on many occasions by many unions”.—[Official Report, 11/1/16; col. 14.]
	Concluding the Second Reading debate, very late at night, just after 10.45 pm, she referred to it again, saying:
	“We are also comfortable with the measures on picketing, which are designed to make it clear to the police and the employer both where a picket is taking place and whom the police or an employer should contact. These are reasonable steps to ensure that pickets pass off peacefully”.—[Official Report, 11/1/16; col. 126.]
	The difference between those two quotations is, of course, the absence of any reference to the code. That might have been acceptable, except that the clause includes 10 subsections at least half of which are just an irritant to union and employer procedures in dealing with these difficult subjects.
	If industrial action has been called and a strike is looming, or things are getting difficult, already, the temperature has risen. To have detailed measures about the individual behaviour of pickets—most of whom, according to the police, have behaved very well in the examples we have over the past 20 years since the period of unusual unrest before that—is putting oil on the fire and raising the temperature still further. Surely that cannot be right.
	The Minister has been accommodating and forthcoming in Committee both on Monday and today, saying that she will give careful thought to lots of suggestions made in amendments, allowing us to have no Divisions so far and clauses to go through. I hope that she will be able to give such an undertaking in respect of this very important clause and the procedures on picketing.

Lord Callanan: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to noble Lords who have spoken in favour of these amendments. I am slightly at a loss to know what their complaints are. It seems that everybody who has spoken so far supports the picketing code, which has been reasonably successful for more than 20 years now. I hope that nobody supports the kind of tactics and behaviour outlined by my noble friend Lord De Mauley. I think that we, on this side of the House, also accept that the vast majority of union picketing operations abide by the code—but not all, as my noble friend outlined. So what can be the complaint from people who support the code and who agree that it amounts to responsible picketing? What can be the complaint about incorporating some, but not all, of those provisions in statute?
	There are one or two isolated examples, still taking place, of disgraceful intimidation of those who want to go about their lawful business. It seems right that the provisions which have worked successfully for the vast majority of responsible unions should be enforced in statute for the small minority of irresponsible unions. All the proposers have spoken in favour of the code.

Lord Monks: Does the noble Lord accept that the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, are illegal under the present law and can be dealt with now with all sorts of different measures? I assume that the problem with the examples quoted was of enforcement, not of the weakness of law.

Lord Callanan: Well, they might be against the code but, as I understand it, the code is voluntary at the moment. It is not enforceable. I assume that outright intimidation is against the law and I hope that the police would take appropriate action. In its briefing, the CBI refers to a number of instances where the existing code has not been followed. As a responsible trade unionist, the noble Lord should be standing up for the majority of responsible unions that do follow the code and condemning, rather than seeking to support, the small minority that do not and that indulge in irresponsible behaviour. The provisions are entirely reasonable and those who are in favour of responsible trade unionism and responsible picketing should have no problems with them.

Lord Cormack: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House for long. In 1970, I was elected to the other place for a mining constituency. I saw the first miners’ strike and I still had a very large colliery—Littleton Colliery—one of the largest in the country, throughout the second miners’ strike.
	During that period, I was impressed by two things. One was the close community feeling locally, which meant that I was a welcome visitor at any time to the pits—and later to the one pit I had left. I never had any fierce altercation, even heated argument. I had many discussions, but I was also very conscious that ugly things were happening elsewhere and that there was abuse of people who wanted, in all conscience, to go to work and whose lives were made fairly miserable in the process. So I do not think any moderate, sensible, balanced person could possibly disagree that there should be a code. The question is whether we give it the force of law.
	The noble Lord, Lord Monks, made it quite plain that the ugly, indefensible actions to which my noble friend Lord De Mauley referred are illegal anyhow. We have measures that we can take against people who behave in this way. A code does not have the force of law in that sense. The question is whether we incorporate some or all of the code in a piece of legislation, which I think is frankly not necessary. It was in the manifesto and therefore the Government are entitled to bring it before your Lordships’ House, as they have taken it through another place.
	We had a reasonable discussion about taking measures to define what people could and could not do. When I suggested the substitution of the word “clear”, my noble friend gave a moderate and helpful reply. Clearly, there are going to be long discussions taking place between now and Report. I think the answer is for there to be a discussion on the whole subject of picketing. In the 21st century, no reasonable person could conceivably argue that there should be no legal protection for people who wished to withdraw their labour. Of course there should. It therefore follows that there must be proper legal provision for those who wish peacefully to persuade their fellow workers who have not accepted the strength and validity of their arguments to do so. It must be done within a wholly peaceful, unaggressive, unintimidatory context. I do not think anybody in your Lordships’ House would disagree. My noble friend the Minister has shown herself open to ideas and suggestions. We need a proper discussion with her to see if we cannot come to a proper compromise that can be in this piece of legislation without overdoing it—without putting boots on it, if I can use that metaphor. I hope that this will follow from this debate.

Lord Oates: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in support of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Stoneham and to pick up on some of the points made so far.
	First, it should be absolutely clear that the noble Lord, Lord Monks, did not suggest that he was supporting people who engaged in intimidatory and violent action. He certainly did not and that should be on the record.
	The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, spoke as if the code of practice for picketing was the only framework within which picketing took place. It is not. As the Government’s impact statement says, there is a detailed framework of civil and criminal law which governs picketing. In addition, there is a statutory code of practice on picketing which may be taken into account in law in any event. My noble friend Lord Stoneham made an important point about taking the code of practice into law—whether unions and members might be less willing to supervise pickets if we moved in that way. As my noble friend said, the unions play an extremely important role in ensuring that trade disputes are conducted in a proper and lawful manner.
	Finally, I return to the point made by my noble friend Lord Stoneham, the noble Lord, Lord Monks, and other noble Lords. It is not good enough for legislation just to say why something should not be done. It should say why it should be done—what is the problem? The Government’s impact statement fails to provide that. Noble Lords have made reference to the Carr review. As the noble Lord, Lord Monks, said, that often dealt with issues which were not related to picketing and which would have been dealt with under the civil or criminal law. When an impact statement has to rely on the words:
	“However, the media has reported that people not involved in a dispute can feel intimidated”,
	one wonders about the nature of the problem the Government are seeking to solve. We all want to ensure that picketing is done peacefully and properly under the law—that is not in question. The question is how to do it most effectively and whether putting the code of practice into law is the effective way to do it. We, on this side, do not feel it is.

Baroness Donaghy: My Lords, I will make a couple of brief points. There is an irony in this debate, because most of the time in opposition we are asking for things to be in the Bill, and it is the Government who say, “Oh no, there is a very good reason why it should not be in the Bill, it can come in a regulation”—or, dare I say it, in a code of practice. So I am aware of that dilemma. The first thing that I want to say after that is that I do not think that anybody here is going to say that violence and intimidation are acceptable, whether on a picket line or elsewhere in pursuit of a certain point of view. But I will say that up to now the code of practice has been adequate. I do not agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that just because a few people might disregard it, the tail should be allowed to wag the dog and that somehow or other things need to be tightened up because there is a very small minority determined in some cases to cause that confrontation and take on the establishment.
	My final point might seem trivial, but I do not think that it has been raised since my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton raised it at Second Reading.
	It is about the feminisation of the workforce. To a large extent, the trade union movement has not caught up with that as much as I would have liked, but we are now talking about a workforce, particularly in the public services, the majority of whom are women and people from ethnic minorities. As often as not, when you see pictures of pickets in the newspapers, the vast majority of them are women. I think that they have a slightly different understanding of employment relations; they might feel passionately about a particular dispute, but I would like to see one instance where women on a picket line have caused these difficulties. So I urge a bit of caution and that in any attempt to tighten up or change the code of practice into a law we should have regard to the fact that the industrial relations scene is very different from how it was 35 years or so ago, which some noble Lords were talking about.

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, we have had a very effective discussion on these clauses—effective because we are challenging why we need a particular proposal. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, hit the nail on the head. These things often require careful consideration. My fear is that we have not had careful consideration; what we have had is a response to particular headlines and newspaper stories. As my noble friend Lord Monks said, where there are failings it is often because the law has not been properly applied or has not been dealt with. Many noble Lords are acutely aware that we should not rush to statute or invent new laws to address a problem that could be properly resolved under existing laws.
	As we have heard, picketing is heavily regulated; unions must comply with statutory requirements for peaceful picketing. Section 220 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 requires that they must act in accordance with the code. It is not a choice or an option—it is not voluntary but a requirement. As my noble friend Lord Monks said, “What is the problem?”
	As other noble Lords indicated, and as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, said, it is clear from the impact assessment that the real target is the so-called leverage campaigns that we have seen. Yet these provisions and clauses are targeted at picketing itself, particularly after the wider consultation proposals were dropped. The problem that I have is that the impact assessment refers to allegations of intimidatory behaviour “not limited to picketing”. That is the key phrase: “not limited to”. The impact assessment and evidence that the Government are using for these proposals relate to matters that are not about picketing.
	They are, of course, about actions that are already covered in law. The impact assessment refers to unsubstantiated allegations in the media and, of course, to the Bruce Carr review, which focused on leverage. But we must not forget that unions and their members are subject to laws on public order, such as protection from harassment and criminal damage. They are all existing laws. It is also a criminal offence for pickets to use violence or to intimidate individuals and their families. Hence the police go on the picket line, and they soon return if there is any problem, and action is taken. So why do we have these additional requirements?
	We have heard that we should have a voluntary code—well, it is not voluntary; it must be complied with—on the face of the Bill. As my noble friend said, we want clarity in the Bill, but this is not going to add to clarity. Potentially, again, it is going to increase the involvement of the legal profession, and it might lead to challenges that are unintended. I shall come to the details of that in the Bill. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is not in his place, because he wrote a very good article in the Times specifically highlighting these clauses. It is about coming back to this House with proper evidence about why this is required and why existing statutory provisions are not enough.
	The clause will introduce significant additional restrictions on the ability of unions to organise peaceful pickets at or near a place of work. If the Bill becomes law, picketing will be lawful only if unions appoint a picket supervisor and notify the police of their name and contact details. The supervisors will be required to carry a letter of approval, which must be shown; they will be required to wear armbands and badges to identify them. As we have heard, on Report in the Commons the Government introduced amendments that removed the requirement on picket supervisors to show the letter of approval on demand to the police or any member of the public.
	Ministers also clarified that it was not the Government’s intention that the letter of approval should include the name or contact details of the picket supervisor. The Government went further and announced that they did not plan to go ahead with additional restrictions, including the requirement on unions to publish protest plans 14 days in advance and to detail whether they proposed to use social media. They also decided not to require all pickets to wear armbands, and will not introduce additional criminal offences. While those developments are incredibly welcome, Clause 9 still violates the basic democratic rights of working people.
	In our opinion, it is unreasonable for the state to require picket supervisors to undertake the requirements about understanding the full code. It is our opinion that a lot of these requirements are disproportionate and are also discriminatory measures, as they apply only to unions. As we have heard, the proposals have been roundly criticised by lawyers and civil liberties groups—and, of course, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has suggested that Clause 9, even as amended, may be in breach of Articles 11 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
	My noble friend has also picked up the point that Clause 9 may substantially change the role of the police in relation to pickets and the union’s requirement to report the name of the supervisor. This becomes an issue where we have responsible action, with the union ensuring that peaceful protest and legitimate process to explain the reasons, and suddenly responsible people hear that their name has to be reported to the police and that the police will hold their name. They will ask what that means. We hear the Government talk about data protection, and say that this will happen and that will happen. A lot of responsible people will say that they are not sure. They will ask whether they should carry out this task in this proper way if it will result in these things being reported to the police. It increases the potential for responsible picketing not taking place. We will have to look into that seriously.
	In the evidence session in the House of Commons, the National Police Chiefs’ Council has indicated that the new duties for unions to notify the police of the picket supervisor and the location of the picket would be unnecessary and could waste police resources. Deputy Chief Constable Charles Hall said:
	“I do not see that as absolutely necessary, simply because we would expect those picket lines to be self-policing as far as possible. Involvement of police beyond that should be the exception, rather than the rule”.––[Official Report, Commons, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 15/10/15; col. 93.]
	Again, this was a point that my noble friend Lord Monks made: namely, that you are ensuring increased intervention and that resources are wasted. Police are there to ensure that the existing law is properly maintained. I know that the police would not hesitate to go in there.
	We have put down a series of amendments, particularly in relation to those reporting requirements. They are matters that need careful consideration. Putting these requirements in the Bill again increases the propensity for legal challenge. If the letter of the law is not met, we will end up with lawyers intervening, legal challenges and the unions devoting resources to deal with that, instead of matters being properly resolved in the way that they are now.
	I come back to the point: what is the problem that we are seeking to address? If it is about compliance with the law, let us ensure that we address that properly. If people are breaking the law they should suffer the consequences. We should not simply go back to the statute book and introduce laws that are not necessary and could potentially hinder good conduct, because good people will be put off doing a responsible job.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, for his amendment and for bringing up his experience as a manager involved in a dispute.
	The Government recognise that peaceful picketing is legitimate and lawful. We are not changing that. Equally, we believe that people have the right to go into work or about their daily lives without fear or risk of being intimidated. This is what we committed to in our manifesto. Picketing in Britain is governed by a framework of civil and criminal law, and is further guided by the provisions, as some have said, set out in the code of practice on picketing. I am pleased to say that most picketing is peaceful and, as the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, reminded the Committee, I said at Second Reading that most unions observe the provisions set out in the code. I say “most” as, regrettably, this is not so in every case.
	A number of noble Lords have mentioned the Carr review, including my noble friend Lord De Mauley, and have gone through some of the submissions that were made to that review, which I will not repeat. The review was set up because of the intimidating tactics at Grangemouth, which I think shocked us all in 2013.
	Furthermore, in response to a government consultation on this issue in July, nearly half of the 177 respondents stated that they had observed intimidating behaviour, either during picketing or more generally as a result of strike action. This included following staff from the picketing line, strikers bringing dogs to a picket line outside a school and alcohol being consumed on the picket line, leading to heightened incidences of intimidation. One union stated that more than half of its members had experienced intimidation of its non-striking union members.
	Even more concerning was the increasing prevalence of intimidation online. Cameras are being used to take images of people crossing picket lines that are then posted online to name and shame them. These photographs are often accompanied by derogatory comments, images and innuendo. Another union, which similarly consulted its members, concluded that the current legal protections are not effective, particularly where low-level intimidation was involved. The CBI has also stated that its members have witnessed trade union activity that falls foul of current guidelines.
	The Government are clear that this type of behaviour must be tackled, but it must be done in an effective and proportionate way. Therefore, while our recent consultation also sought views on other proposals, including a new criminal offence of unlawful picketing, we listened. The Government will not be taking these forward. Instead, we have committed to the fair and proportionate provisions of Clause 9. We will also update the code of practice, making clear what is expected in relation to social media, which on occasion has been subject to misunderstanding.
	The provisions of Clause 9 are not new and unions will be familiar with them. They reflect the key aspects of the code on picketing, which has been around since 1992. Where they have been followed by most unions, these provisions have not raised concerns or prevented unions picketing. They are targeted at the activities of the minority of unions that do not follow the code. The CBI is equally of the view that while the code has encouraged positive behaviour, its current voluntary status does not ensure that all trade union members follow its guidelines. As we have heard, it has said that it would like to go further and that we should transpose the entire code into a statute. However, we are being proportionate and enacting only the relevant parts that will tackle the intimidation of non-striking workers. There has been a lot of interest in this area and I hope the Committee will bear with me as I go through the amendments briefly.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, said, we have discussed on many occasions whether we should have “may” or “must”. Neither of us has been entirely consistent. These reforms are preventive measures that should stop unacceptable and intimidating behaviour. They are directed at those unions that currently do not observe the guidance set out in the code. Making compliance with these requirements voluntary would completely undermine their effectiveness. It would also result in confusion with the guidance of the code of practice on picketing that should complement Clause 9.
	The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, asked me three questions, which I will seek to answer. He asked whether I accepted that the co-operation of unions is critical for peaceful picketing. I agree that it is. However, we want to ensure that it is easy for all those attending a picket line to identify who the responsible union official is and that is why we are asking for a picket supervisor to be clearly identifiable.

Lord Stoneham of Droxford: They already are, so why does that need to be statutory?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: It is in the code, of course, but it is not in the legislation and it is not legally enforceable in the same way. As I have sought to explain, we have put the key provisions in the Bill so that they are observed. These are provisions that the vast majority of unions, as we have heard this evening, feel are entirely reasonable.
	The second question related to concern that further legal action would mean that unions would distance themselves from picketing—I think I understood that correctly. The provisions in Clause 9 are perfectly reasonable and proportionate. The appointment of the picket organiser is already in the code and is well known to unions. I see no reason why unions should not comply with those provisions.

Lord Monks: The current relationship of the law to the code is important. The code is taken into account in any legal proceedings. For example, if there is intimidation, and there is nobody in charge of the picket line, that makes it a more serious offence than if somebody was there trying to stop it, as is often the case with a picket supervisor. It is not just a matter of wishy-washy voluntarism. A criminal offence is being committed, and the provisions of the code are taken into account. It is quite a powerful weapon. To make it rigid statute law that there should be, say, six pickets but there are seven there and the police are supposed to do something about that, seems to be asking for trouble rather than calming it down.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: I note what the noble Lord says. In a sense, I think he is making the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, made with his third question about why the code is not adequate. Examples from the Carr review and elsewhere, which I went through earlier, reveal that the code is not always followed. By putting elements of the code on a statutory footing in the Bill we will ensure consistency across all picketing activity, which will improve union accountability and public confidence.
	The noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned human rights. I think the allegation is that the legal obligation to appoint a picket supervisor and to show credentials to the police is discriminatory. Unfortunately, as the Carr review heard last year, there is concerning evidence that pickets organised by unions can and do lead to unacceptable levels of intimidation. In the circumstances, the Government consider it important that unions take all the steps they reasonably can to co-operate with police and ensure that pickets pass off peacefully. These provisions are not disproportionate and are justified under Article 11 and the ILO conventions. Rather than delay the Committee on this issue, I should say that following the debate at Second Reading I wrote to the chairman of the EHRC on the various human rights aspects of the Bill.
	Amendment 42 limits the provisions of Clause 9 only to picketing that is directly organised by the union and will create unhelpful distinctions between union-organised picketing and picketing that is encouraged by the union. It would lead to unnecessary confusion between what will be perceived as different types of picketing. The law should apply to all picketing.
	On Amendment 45, the Bill sets out a number of requirements which, combined, make the provisions in Clause 9 work effectively. The key to achieving this is the appointment of the picket supervisor, who needs to be familiar with the code so that he or she can act as a source of knowledge and advice.

Lord Collins of Highbury: This returns to the point about reasonable people. How will the requirement that the person be familiar with the code be tested? What knowledge is required? As my noble friend said, the person may think seven people rather than six is reasonable. What will the person be judged on there?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: That is a good question, but my understanding is that provisions relating to familiarity are not new. They have been in the code of practice on picketing since 1992. Familiarity with the code is not an onerous requirement; it is a necessity for the person who is going about their business.
	I turn to interaction with the police. It is important that the police know who the picket supervisor is, how to contact him or her and where the picket is taking place. The supervisor does not have to be on the picket line all the time, provided they can return at short notice. It provides an extra safeguard where the police will be able to contact the supervisor should an issue arise on the picket line that does not require police intervention but would benefit from the picket supervisor’s advice.
	The advance notice of such details, in particular the location of the picketing, should help the police to plan their resources in the event that something happens on the picket line which requires their attention. The provision to inform the police reflects the language of the code, which has not given cause for concern. The police are, of course, bound by the Data Protection Act and any complaints about the mishandling of personal data can be brought before the independent Police Complaints Commissioner and/or the Information Commissioner. I am not aware of any complaints of this nature related to picketing.
	I move on to Amendments 48 and 49 and the letter of approval. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, this has been the cause of significant misunderstanding and concern. We have listened and made amendments. There is now no requirement for any of the picket supervisor’s personal details to be in the letter. Following consultation, the Government tabled an amendment so that the letter seeks only to approve the picketing activity. We further fine-tuned Clause 9 to clarify that only the employer to which the trade dispute relates and at whose workplace picketing occurs will be entitled to see this letter.
	I fear that removing this requirement for a letter would result in confusion on the picket line about whether the union has endorsed the picketing and appointed a picket supervisor. I am not sure whether that was the intention, but the substituted wording in Amendment 49 removes the words,
	“as soon as reasonably practicable”,
	and would make the provision to see the letter more onerous.
	On Amendments 51 and 52, the appointed picket supervisor will be the main point of contact during picketing and will act as a source of knowledge so that picketing remains peaceful. That is in everyone’s interest.
	Finally, I come to the matter brought forward in the other place by the honourable member for Haltemprice and Howden. The media portrayal of this issue of armbands has been frankly mischievous. The key part is that the picket supervisor must be identifiable. The reference to an armband already sits in the code and is, of course, an indicative example. There are other ways of being identifiable, for example, wearing a badge or having blue hair. However, it is clear that there are concerns. I will therefore reflect further on this matter before Report.
	Clause 9 seeks to tackle the intimidation of non-striking workers in a fair and proportionate way. It will result in picketing that is peaceful and consistent in the way it is conducted. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Stoneham of Droxford: I thank the Minister for her reply to these amendments. I welcome the support my amendments had from the noble Lords, Lord Monks and Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy. I shall pick up one point the Minister made. She said that by making the code statutory we are going to get consistency of approach to picketing because there will be a statutory obligation. Frankly, if she believes that, I will believe anything because you do not get enforcement or consistency just by making something statutory.
	I shall pick up one point made by the noble Lords, Lord De Mauley and Lord Callanan, in relation to the Carr report. I read the Carr report, and I was amazed that there were not more instances of bad behaviour because this is a very difficult area to control and discipline. Unions play a very important part in exerting discipline and control in these situations. I shall take up one example because a lot of the examples they gave were examples of criminal behaviour that could have been prosecuted. Let us take the example of a person who is under the influence of alcohol on a picket line. Do we want the police to go in and pull that guy out, in quite an inflamed situation? I am sure they would not do that as their first option. They would want a responsible union representative who is the supervisor of the picket line—which is provided for in the code—to go in and deal with that person and quietly persuade him to leave the picket line. If he is unable to do that and the person does not leave, there is a difficulty either way.
	The problem will be if that individual, having tried to do that, is then prosecuted because he has not fulfilled the statutory duty that is now laid down for picketing. Who in the union movement is going to take on the job of picket line supervisor when they could risk being taken through the courts? I have seen it happen to an individual from the shop floor. It destroys their life because they are not used to it, and it is irresponsible. Anybody who has seen that will know that nobody in their right mind in the union movement would easily take on that responsibility. The point that we are trying to make is that the code, by being voluntary, encourages people like that to help enforce consistency and order in the picket line, and if you make it statutory you will complicate the situation and deter that sort of behaviour. That is the problem. However, I withdraw my amendment.
	Amendment 41 withdrawn.
	Amendments 42 to 56 not moved.
	Clause 9 agreed.
	Clause 10: Opting in by union members to contribute to political funds
	Amendment 57
	 Moved by Lord Collins of Highbury
	57: Clause 10, page 6, line 1, leave out “in writing”

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, we have two groups dealing with this clause. In a later group, my noble friend Lady Smith will focus on the principles behind Clauses 10 and 11, the fundamental unfairness of the proposals, the timeframe for implementation and the impact on party-political funding—issues which are currently being investigated by your Lordships’ Select Committee. So I will not dwell too much on the points that will be covered by my noble friend.
	In this group of amendments, I want to focus on the practicalities and the cost to the trade unions of implementing the clauses and on whether the Government have considered processes that would ease the administrative burden through more modern methods. I am acutely aware that the existing model rules of political funds have been laid down by statute and have to be approved by the Certification Officer. They state exactly what the union can or cannot do in terms of notices and how they are applied. What I find interesting is that the Government have, in effect, replicated the requirements for renewal notices in terms of the opt-in every five years. They will need to be in writing and must be delivered to the union’s headquarters or branch office, in person or through an agent, or by post. They repeat the existing provisions in the political fund rules. In terms of an opt-in, if the Government pursue that route—obviously, I am not addressing the principles here—it would seem sensible to look at what is the current practice in the way people pay their subscriptions, notify their union and communicate with it. It would have been an opportunity to look at that.
	If we are to be committed to these processes where they must be in writing and delivered by post, such processes will prove time-consuming for members and incredibly cumbersome for unions, which will not be able to take advantage of automated processing systems. I have seen the letter from the noble Baroness to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. Before writing that letter, she needed to look at the model rules that unions are required to comply with and see what they can do. The current opt-in provisions are laid down. Of course, unions have had to conduct statutory ballots on whether they have a political fund every 10 years. Within that process, obviously unions have a huge communication responsibility, particularly on the purpose of a political fund. I have often tried to explain to people that a political fund is not a separate pot of gold. It is a part of a union subscription that a member gives to the union that may be spent for political purposes. Those political purposes have changed over the years, particularly since PPERA, and I will come to some of those issues in later clauses.
	I want to focus on the practical implications. Regarding the opt-in renewal notices and the requirement for them to be in writing, I hope the Minister will be very clear about what that means. The Government’s impact assessment has stated that the cost of doing this will reach more than £2.4 million every five years. The TUC believes that that is a substantial underestimate; from my own personal experience, I tend to agree. It is a huge cost. That cost is not going not to the Labour Party or anywhere else; it is not going on union services and union benefits. It is an additional cost and a regulatory burden that needs to be taken into account. Even though there is a requirement to opt in every five years, the members, even when they have opted in, will have an opt-out at any point.
	My big concern is that currently the Bill says that unions would have to implement these provisions within 12 weeks. That is an incredibly short time in which to be able to mount such a huge exercise. Clause 10 will require unions to revise their rulebook. In this country, unions are not part of the state. They may have been in some other nations, but in this country unions are independent. They govern themselves and they have rulebooks that are overseen by their members. In order to comply with this measure, rule changes would need to be agreed by members, with a process of approval through the Certification Officer. It is completely unreasonable for the Government to expect unions with a political fund to convene a special rule-making conference within three months. Most unions hold such conferences once a year or every two years, and in some cases it has been once every five years. Of course, in some unions the executive committees have delegated authority.

Lord Robathan: Surely this Bill is talking about what was agreed by the TUC in 1984—we have the letters. It was said that opting out would be made so obvious that it would happen but, as the noble Lord knows from my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s letter, that has not been the case.

Lord Collins of Highbury: I am sure that we will come on to that requirement. One thing that this debate has to deal with is the existing requirements in relation to trade unions. Any code of practice or model guidance more than 30 years ago was made in the context of 10-yearly ballots on whether a union should have a political fund. A union’s practices in terms of notifying and making its members aware of opt-out provisions are laid down by statute. They are not set out simply in a code; they are laid down in model rules specified by the Certification Officer and the unions must comply with them. For example—this is my point about some of the regulatory requirements— if a method of communication were electronic, it would not necessarily be compliant with the union’s existing rules and you could have the ridiculous situation where the unions were challenged for breaching them. Regarding the operation of the opt-out, you would need to ask how many complaints there had been and how many people had been dissatisfied with their rights.
	Not only was I an assistant general-secretary of the Transport and General Workers’ Union and Unite but I was general-secretary of the Labour Party. I recall that in 2008 the Scottish National Party, the Conservative Party and, I think, the Liberal Democrats mounted a campaign to ensure that members knew of their right to opt out. It did not result in a huge number of opt-outs because I think people were perfectly aware of the procedure. It is a bit like some members of the Conservative Party asserting that the relationship between the unions and the Labour Party is a secret. If it is such a secret and is not known, all I can say is that the Daily Mail certainly seems to make enough of it. During the last general election campaign, I saw Conservative Party literature that made it absolutely clear who funds the Labour Party.
	I have absolutely no problem with being totally out and proud of the relationship that the Labour Party has with the trade unions. In 1900, the trade unions established the Labour Party. They were the members of the Labour Party for the first 18 years. There were no individuals in the party. It was a federated body whose purpose was to ensure representation in Parliament. Over the years, things have changed. The last time these sorts of proposals were implemented was in 1927—

Lord Callanan: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have the honour of serving on the committee which is currently studying this matter, and I suppose that we should be grateful to the Labour Party for suggesting this. One factor that we have been considering a great deal is the Collins review, which I believe was written by the noble Lord. Correct me if I am wrong, but did that not propose moving from an opt-out to an opt-in system, albeit over a slightly longer timescale?

Lord Collins of Highbury: If the noble Lord wants me to give a long lecture on the Collins review, I shall be very happy to do that. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Maude, is here because, prior to the Collins review, he and I sat down for nearly a whole year and talked about party-political funding. During that time, never once did we think of changing the current arrangements by statute. Opting in and opting out of a political fund is not simply a matter about party funding, and of course not all unions are affiliated to or give money to the Labour Party—they use their political funds for a range of purposes. My concern about these proposals does not relate simply to Labour Party or party-political funding; we will come to that.
	The question of the current ability to opt out of the political fund arrangements is dealt with in the amendments. Should we reinvigorate the voluntary code in addition to the 10-yearly ballots? You can hardly say that during those ballots people are not notified about the existence of a political fund.
	I know that I am a lot older than I look, but I remember when the original 1984 proposals came in. In fact, I was partly responsible for implementing them. There was a genuine concern in some quarters, with people asking, “Do people know about political funds? Do they know what we’re doing?”. In some respects it was a challenge for the trade unions—as with all threats, they are often challenges. The 1984 proposals made unions go out and make a strong case for their political funds. What was the result of the 1984 Act? It was not that some unions decided not to have a political fund. Every single union that had a political fund in 1984 adopted the resolution, through postal voting by their members, and kept their political fund. But the 1984 provision also made other unions think that perhaps this would enable them to have a voice, which they had not had so far. As a consequence of the 1984 Act, we ended up with more unions having political funds than had been the case before, so the challenge was important and it was delivered upon.
	If there is a problem concerning the right of members to say for religious, personal or other reasons, “I don’t want any of my union subscription spent on political purposes”, then let us address it properly. The Collins report was about the relationship between the Labour Party and the trade union movement. It asked: has that relationship since 1900 worked properly? In 1920, we adopted a constitution that introduced individuals into the party. There was then a dichotomy, with individuals and affiliated organisations, and the question of the balance of responsibility between the two groups. That is our tradition; it is our heritage. We are not going to turn the clock back and say that how we have become what we are is unimportant. We need to understand the journey and, sometimes, that journey leads us to changes that need to be made; for example, when we reformed the way that we conducted our business. That is the context of the Collins report.
	My noble friend Lady Smith will address the point about whether to opt in or opt out of political funds in the next group, so we will have two bites of the cherry—the next group but one, sorry; I forgot about the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours. I do not know how the Minister covers so many groups. The point is that there are issues that need to be addressed here. The Government are imposing, with a 12-week transition period, incredible burdens on unions and making it extremely difficult for these provisions to be implemented. In some respects, it makes one feel that the whole purpose of the exercise is to make it so difficult that not many people will opt in. I know that my noble friend will address this, but when Sir Christopher Kelly and Hayden Phillips looked at this issue in the round, they concluded that a transitional period was necessary and that it should be five years. That was in the context of taking big money out of politics, donations and interparty talks.
	I want to focus on the specifics. The amendments I have put down are about the ways we can ensure that, if this is going to go through, it is not deliberately causing difficulties for the union or individual members. Why is there a five-year opt-in period? Why do people have to do it again? If someone does not opt in again after five years, why is the default position that they are out? What is that provision for? Bear in mind that, in addition to the requirement to opt in, the 1984 Act will remain on the statute and requires unions to conduct a ballot every 10 years on whether they have a political fund. Why is there a five-year review? It is unnecessary and, I think, being done deliberately to ensure that people will not be in the political fund.
	One issue I have some concern with is the Government saying that there is no evidence that there would be a substantial attrition in membership resulting from this lapsing after five years. But look at any evidence about making people do something positively. It is a bit like signing a donor card and then being told that you will have to sign it again every five years. I know what the medical profession would say to that: it would not be very happy. I do not know why this is being applied here at all.
	Through the details of each of my amendments, I want to probe exactly what methodology the Government are proposing. Perhaps the Minister can explain what “in writing” means. She has had tremendous responsibility in digitising the economy and making sure that we have modern methods of communications—apart from, as I heard in the background from my noble friend, for the unions. Unions cannot adopt modern methods of communication or proper processes that will ensure success. No, it has to be “in writing”.
	If this requirement does come into effect, why have the Government not considered the possibility of applying it only to new members? Why are the unions being given the huge task of going back to members who have understood themselves to be part of the organisation to ask them to opt in? The Government are making retrospective legislation, in some senses. Why has a gradual approach not been looked at? These are issues that we need to look at in some detail.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I feel that, in a sense, these debates are in the wrong order. The noble Lord is talking about the various ways in which, if the Bill is brought in, it might be improved. The noble Lord, Lord Monks, has tabled an important amendment which goes to the heart of the matter and the fundamental reasons we are here in the first place, and I think the Minister will have something to say on these issues as well. I do not know how we are going to deal with these issues. They are very important, and I understand the sensitivities and deep feeling involved. It would be a good idea if we could somehow get the amendments in this debate in the right order. I do not know whether to foreclose on this, but perhaps we should deal briefly with these particular amendments and then get to the heart of the matter.

Lord Collins of Highbury: I am grateful for that intervention. The noble Lord, Lord King, is right. I could not predict the order that we would take the amendments in, and I am happy to leave these on the table, as it were, so that we can look at the practical implications and move speedily on to the next groups, where we will be able to address the principles in relation to the model rules. I beg to move.

Lord Stoneham of Droxford: Are we not going to have a preliminary debate on this? I want to make the same point as was made by the noble Lord, Lord King. We have already had a long debate on this section and have decided that the matter will be referred to a Select Committee, which is now taking evidence. Therefore, I do not intend to make a long speech on these amendments, for the very reasons that the noble Lord, Lord King, said.
	I do not want to go into all the arguments as to why the Select Committee is important, but, in parenthesis, and so that I do not have to say much more in this series of debates, I want to say three things. First, the Select Committee received evidence from the Certification Officer when it was in public session. As I understand it, he said two things. One is that he was never consulted, which is surprising if we are trying to look at responsible legislation, because he is going to have to implement it. The second thing he said is that he has had to deal with very few complaints on opting-in and opting-out issues.
	Secondly, I want to make a general point about the amendments in this group, and particularly the reference to “electronic means”. If we want a way to encourage people not to opt in, it ought to be in writing because, these days, nobody responds to correspondence in an efficient and effective way, but they do respond to emails. To have the Minister, a pioneer of the digital age, advocating that all the replies should be in writing is, frankly, taking us back to the horse and cart. That is very important.
	Thirdly, government Ministers do not have to employ an army of special advisers to advise them on the best way of doing the Labour Party down. I am sure that there are behavioural scientists who advise the Government on how people respond to government correspondence. They know exactly what happens when you take a certain action. If you stick to the writing, rather than going electronic, you are just encouraging the destruction of the funding of the Labour Party.
	Nobody has more interest than this side of the House in getting political funding reform, I can tell you. But as we said in the debate, we want to make sure that this is a fair package which is agreed. If you do not, it will be open warfare in the future and your individual donations will be under attack—

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords—

Lord Stoneham of Droxford: Yes, I know. I am getting there. I am quite entitled to make my points, as the amendment has been moved. I do not intend to say much during the debate, but those points needed to be made.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: My Lords, I propose that we adjourn and that I answer the questions that have been raised by the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Stoneham, when we discuss the amendment after next.

Lord Collins of Highbury: Okay. In the light of those comments, I will withdraw the amendment, as long as I can then interrupt the Minister in the next group.
	Amendment 57 withdrawn.
	Amendments 58 to 64 not moved.
	House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.31 pm.

Cycling
	 — 
	Question for Short Debate

Lord Young of Cookham: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to promote cycling as a safe means of transport.

Lord Young of Cookham: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to promote the cause of cycling and am grateful to noble Lords for postponing their evening meal to take part. I welcome the Minister who is to reply, and commend in particular the work of his colleague Robert Goodwill, who holds the cycling brief at the department and sets a fine example by travelling on two wheels whenever he can.
	On 11 July 1975, more than 40 years ago, I initiated a debate on cycling in the other place. The Minister who replied was Denis Howell—the Sports Minister—indicating that the then Government regarded cycling primarily as a form of recreation. I presented him with a cyclists’ charter: a bicycle unit in his department; cycle lanes through the Royal Parks; proficiency courses for children; a requirement that in all new developments provision should be made to encourage the cyclist by separating his journey from that of the motorist; the identification of cycle-priority routes; mileage allowances for cyclists; and better provision for bicycles on trains by British Rail, with more covered parking spaces at stations. My suggestions were either summarily dismissed —such as the cycle allowance, the bicycle unit in the department and the directives to British Rail—or described by the Minister as “interesting”. This was before “Yes Minister” but, as a former civil servant myself, I knew that by “interesting” he meant absurd.
	The very first point he made was that cycling was dangerous, and I am afraid that coloured his whole response. As it was dangerous, he thought we should be careful before encouraging it. But that argument should be stood on its head. Cycling of itself is a benign and safe activity. On health, environmental, energy conservation and congestion grounds, it should be encouraged by making it safer by, among other things, reducing the interface with danger, primarily traffic.
	Safety is of course important, as the title of this debate implies, but the Minister reminded the all-party group last week that cycling in London is in fact no more dangerous than walking in London and, crucially, cycling becomes safer as the numbers increase and the terms of trade begin to change.
	In the intervening decades since that debate, enormous progress has been made by Administrations of all colours, thanks to the Cyclists’ Touring Club, the all-party group, Sustrans and many others. Despite the tight-fitting lycra suit of public expenditure constraint, during the past five years the Government have invested more in cycling than any previous Government. As noble friend said yesterday, investment has risen from £2 per head to about £6.
	The Infrastructure Act requires the Government to produce a cycling and walking investment strategy, with money allocated on the same basis—though not, sadly, in the same quantity—as for rail, main road and motorways. The Minister told us yesterday it would be published in the summer. Can he more precise, and will that be the draft or the final document?
	We have a long way to go, and I want to play my modest part in the upper House, where the press has promoted me from the bicycling baronet to the pedalling Peer, to press for further action until we have reached the situation in Holland, which I regard as the cyclist’s Utopia. In the Netherlands, 27% of journeys are by bicycle, compared with 2% here. I am conscious that we need to overcome a disadvantage for which the Almighty is responsible—namely, on the third day, when He said, “Let the dry land appear”, it appeared flat in Holland but hilly in Britain. However, the introduction of multi-geared bicycles and, indeed, the growing popularity of electric bicycles can help to neutralise this handicap.
	I visited Holland with other noble Lords in April 2009 and it made a deep impression. For the Dutch, cycling is like walking, but on wheels. In other words, it is done in ordinary clothes, without sweat, by the same people who walk. Here, by contrast, cycling is predominantly male, white, youngish, fast and often in cycling gear. It will take time for this cultural shift to take place, until more people use their feet for journeys up to say half a mile; the bicycle for longer journeys, of up to, say, three or four miles; and then public transport or a car for longer journeys. Nearly everyone in this country can ride a bicycle and there are bicycles in most households. After school, college or university, however, two wheels are abandoned, and resumed only if the Tube drivers or tanker drivers go on strike. I commend the CTC bike revival project to get disused bikes in garages back on the road—the two-wheel version of “bring out your dead”—and I hope it can be expanded.
	As I said, this cultural change will take time; it will be decades before we catch up with the Dutch. However, noble Lords can and do help to promote this change. As more people see Peers, Ministers, judges, generals, Permanent Secretaries—even, dare I say, bishops—cycling to work, it helps promote this form of transport. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that regular cyclists live an extra two years.
	How can the Government promote this change? When I first took an interest in cycling, segregation of cyclists was seen by many cyclists as a threat to their entitlement to use the road as equals, making them second-class citizens. Having been to Holland, however, I see separate provision as a key part of the change we need. I welcome the superhighways now being built by the Mayor of London and similar initiatives in other towns and cities. Where separate provision is not practical, we need measures to reduce the interface with other traffic and make it safer.
	I have a modest shopping list for the Minister, hoping for a warmer response than the one I got from Denis Howell. We need more high-quality, protected cycle lanes on roads with large traffic volumes or high speeds—lanes that are physically separate from cars and pedestrians. We need more segregated routes through parks, and alongside canals and railway lines. We need cycle paths and designated routes that reflect popular journeys. We need to give real thought to how these dedicated routes and paths interface with main roads at junctions. We need to integrate cycling better with public transport, and encourage more employers to make it easier for employees who live nearby to cycle to work.
	We should build on the Safe Routes to School initiative, pioneered by Sustrans. In the Netherlands, 45% of primary school children and 75% of secondary school children cycle to school. Here, the figures are 1% and 2%. I welcome the £50 million allocated to Bikeability in December for training in schools, and hope the Minister will liaise with colleagues in DfE and local government to promote safer journeys to school. I recognise that parents are rightly cautious about letting their children cycle to school unless they are satisfied that it is safe for them to do so.
	The Government can give clear guidance on the designing of new roads. At the moment there is a confusing plethora of design guidance notes which are contradictory and lead to poor outcomes. Excellent standards have been developed by Transport for London and the Government should follow that example. Planning policy can ensure that all new developments are cycle-friendly.
	We need to introduce a new generation of lorries, from whose cabs drivers can see all around them, as with new buses. The Government can give a lead here by specifying the use of these safer lorries by Highways England, the HS2 rail project and other publicly funded infrastructure investment. The City of London is already leading the way in this respect.
	One of the messages that Robert Goodwill left with the APPG was that many decisions on cycling have been devolved to local authorities. I have no quarrel with that, but it underlines the need for local, as well as national, champions. There needs to be at least one active councillor on each local authority who is a standard-bearer for the cyclist and who can ensure, among other things, that the pothole fund helps the cyclist as well as the motorist.
	I am conscious that, in earlier exchanges on this subject, the cycling fraternity has met some headwind from some noble Lords who have had unfortunate experiences with cyclists. A minority of cyclists give us all a bad name by flouting the
	Highway Code
	and the law. I am no friend of theirs. I am relaxed if the lights turn red because I like to stop and get my breath back. But the antagonism between cyclists and motorists can be overdone. Many cyclists are also motorists: 80% have driving licences and 18% of AA members cycle. All motorists, if not cyclists themselves, have family or friends who are. Like the farmer and the cowman in “Oklahoma!”, the cyclist and the motorist should be friends, having a common interest in making safe and sensible use of the road space where they share it.
	Much more needs to be done and other noble Lords will make the case, but I end by quoting what the Prime Minister, who has called for a cycling revolution, said in the Government’s vision document for the cycling and walking investment strategy. The vision was,
	“to create an environment which encourages walking and cycling, where cycling and walking is the norm for short journeys or as part of a longer journey. Our ambition is for streets and public places which support walking and cycling”.
	That admirable vision needs to be backed by the necessary investment to make this form of transport safer and more popular. It needs to be dynamised by more ambitious targets than the modest ones currently adopted by government, and it needs to be achieved by a genuine partnership with the many people who want to see two wheels realise their true potential in a 21st century transport system.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, the House is incredibly lucky to have the noble Lord, Lord Young, free to talk about one of his favourite subjects. As he said, he has been banging on about cycling for 40 years. It was more difficult when he held different posts in the other place, but his speech demonstrated what a passionate supporter of cycling he is. He is one of the founders of the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group, of which I remain secretary. We heard some very good ideas from him, covering all kinds of needs for cycling. I add one that he missed: I believe that when it rains in Denmark the sequencing of the traffic lights is changed so that cyclists do not get so wet. That is rather a nice idea.
	The noble Lord mentioned devolution, which comes up all the time because it is a good idea. It is good that expenditure, design and enthusiasm for cycling is devolved. On the other hand, we have to watch that that is not then an excuse for some local authorities to do nothing. There are still cyclists there. The Government need to make sure that their intentions, whatever they are, get carried out.
	Devolution—we could almost call it “ducking responsibility”—has been an issue ever since the noble Lord, Lord Young, first spoke on cycling in 1975. It carried on in 1993 in a debate in this House, when the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, who sadly is not here this evening, made similar statements about the need for local authorities to recognise cyclists’ needs. He hoped that it,
	“would lead to more widespread action to improve facilities … which … would encourage more people to cycle”.—[ Official Report , 21/4/1993; cols. 1677.]
	In his response, the then Minister said that most people cycled on local roads—I feel that he was trying to say, “It doesn’t matter very much because that’s for the local authority”—and that expenditure priorities should remain a matter for local decisions. We have heard that before.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, things are improving. In 2013, the all-party group published a document called Get Britain Cycling following an inquiry. Probably almost uniquely, when it was debated in the Commons Chamber it received an unopposed vote of support, which I thought indicated that the Members of Parliament thought that this was a good idea that needed supporting. It said that investment in cycling should be £10 per person per year. In response to a question yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said that it is currently around £6. Of course, that is a great increase on what we have seen before, but it does not link in with what the Cyclists’ Touring Club says. Its figure is more like £1.39 per person outside London. We know that London has some wonderful investment going in and that is really good, but when the Minister replies will he give some explanation of what the £6 covers and where it comes from? Many Ministers have given this figure, which is a really good one. It is not £10, but £6 is better than £1, or £2, or £3. Where does it come from, who will spend it, and on what? Is it ring-fenced to local authorities? Could they spend it on roads or footpaths? I conclude by comparing it to a headline today relating to a report by the Institute of Economic Affairs which says that each family in this country is paying £150 per year in taxes for railways. Divide that by the number of children in a family and it is an awful lot more than £6. Maybe at some stage the Minister can tell us what the equivalent figure is for roads. I look forward to his answers.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for raising this question, because this House does not seem to like cyclists. Some noble Lords hate cyclists and seem to object to their very existence. Every time the subject is raised at Question Time, some Peer will almost explode at their experience of the terrible behaviour of some cyclist that they have witnessed. Others complain about special separated cycle lanes blocking the road at the expense of space for cars, and generally about the inconvenience they cause to those invariably well-behaved, law-abiding, environment-enhancing motorists.
	I remember at one Question Time, when the Question was on safety after another young woman had been crushed to death by a heavy lorry, the majority of follow-up questions were complaints about cyclists talking on their mobiles. Of course there are cyclists who are rude and who break traffic laws. Their behaviour is to be deplored. But do car drivers never behave rudely, break traffic laws and talk on their mobiles? At least cyclists do not kill people.
	My wife and I gave up our car in 1974. We could do so because we live in central London. It was a liberation: no worry about finding a parking place or about drinking if you go out to dinner—as long as you do not get drunk so you are not safe on a bike. There was no more sitting exasperated in traffic jams, or arriving late or even missing meetings because you could not find a taxi. By bike you can get where you want to be on time and you do not suffer the annoyance of discovering someone has dented or scratched your car.
	Cycling, even in London, enhances life’s pleasures. You can look around you as you travel about wonderful London. Fellow cyclists, even policemen, talk to you at traffic lights. Beautiful days make it a pleasure to be out in the open. On rainy days you are snug in your rain gear while cars are snarled up in traffic jams and public transport is unpleasantly overcrowded. It helps to keep you fit, and, not least, we improve the environment: we reduce congestion and air pollution. So, for very good reasons, our family motto is, “Two wheels good, four wheels bad”.
	Safety? My wife and I have each had one relatively minor accident in more than 40 years. A comparison on an actuarial basis done some 10 years ago showed that for every life-year lost through accidents, 20 are gained through improved health. Since then, the ratio will have improved because the more, the merrier, as the noble Lord said: the more people cycle, the more the proportion killed or injured falls. Increasing the number of cyclists is probably the best thing we can do to improve safety. So, nationally, let us disregard the perverse view common in this House and follow the example set by the Danes and the Dutch: we have a lot to learn from them.

Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I am grateful to my fellow pedalling Peer and old friend the noble Lord, Lord Young. I think the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will provide the headwind that we have missed so far in this debate.
	First, I declare my interest as a frequent cyclist, as well as a motorcyclist on a 125 and an infrequent motorist, so I speak from that rounded perspective in full support of the cause of two wheels. I have been involved with the parliamentary cycling group for many years, although I am no longer in the front line; it should be congratulated on what has been achieved in the last Parliament and to date, in conjunction with the Times in particular and the many cyclist lobbying groups.
	We should not forget the generosity and example of the Dutch, whose embassy every year sponsors, with hospitality, an annual bicycle ride from their embassy to Parliament during Bike Week. As has been said, we were told yesterday at Question Time that we are awaiting the Government’s summer report on the distribution of the £300 million during this Parliament. I understand that more than £120 million has already been promised for particular worthy causes, which does not leave much for the rest of the period to 2020, especially when much is likely to be London-centric.
	I realise it is easy to ask for more money, and that can be justified, but, as we know, there is no simple, silver bullet to deal with the worthy but diffuse demands of cycling. While I regard leisure or recreational cycling as valuable, I believe that the majority of our efforts should be on city or commuter cycling, but I realise that, surprisingly, rural cycling is significantly more dangerous than urban. I mention some caution on that without, I hope, being negative.
	I support dedicated cycleways, but we all know of some minor routes that have simply not been thought through or linked up as part of a wider picture, and sometimes the larger schemes are too intrusive on other users. We have witnessed locally, in Westminster, the roadworks necessary to effect the cross-London route along the Victoria Embankment and past Parliament. There, to provide segregated cycle paths, some considerable inconvenience may, in future, be caused to motorists where a heavily-used, two-lane route is effectively being changed into a one-lane channel for cars from which, in parts, no escape is possible, because the cycle area has been physically separated. As has been said, what if any vehicle breaks down, acting as a block for those behind?
	I understand if motorists’ frustration builds up when the neighbouring cycle lanes appear to be very underused. This is particularly so at off-peak times, when they can be particularly sparse. Around and near Parliament Square, it appears that two lanes are now being filtered into one, to allow so-called proper bicycle approaches to junctions. I am reminded of the dedicated bus and taxi lane some years ago alongside the M4 approach to the Chiswick flyover in London. Queueing motorists, in their frustration, could not believe the oft-asserted rationale for such a sparsely used lane and in the end, after some time, that pressure gave way to common sense and the lane was abandoned.
	In the case of cycles, it may be hoped that simply by provision, use will expand. I just hope that the level of frustration at such pinch points in these new schemes does not reach crisis point and serve to aggravate the sometimes fractious relations between motorists and cyclists. I believe that it is not always a case of, “Two wheels good, four wheels bad”.
	On a related matter, also being a motorist, I understand the arguments but have never been convinced about the widespread use of 20 mph zones: why not 15 mph or 25 mph? Also, the 30 mph limit has never been universally or properly enforced. I realise that the justification is for pedestrians as well as cyclists, but I hope that cycling does not get the blame.
	Finally in this short debate, there are no universal answers to very diffuse issues, but I hope there will be more central co-ordination as to how cycling should be supported, perhaps guided by the Government with financial support. For me, the best hope in the longer term is a change of attitude to one of more genuine respect for cyclists, as seen in Denmark and Holland.

Lord Freeman: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham for securing this debate. His example, originally as the bicycling baronet and now as the cycling Peer, is much to be admired. I am sure he must have influenced the leader of the Opposition in the other place, and perhaps the current Health Secretary, whom one frequently sees on the television astride a bicycle.
	I want, first, to talk about safety. Eight cyclists were killed in vehicle collisions in London last year. That is eight tragedies for the families and friends of those cyclists and eight casualties too many. We have had nationally, on average, more than 100 deaths per annum in the last decade, and that is far too many. I am concerned as a parent of a child who travels five miles by bicycle to work each day on crowded roads. I know that my wife and I literally pray for a safe completion of each journey. I think all cycle deaths are tragedies for families.
	I want to mention three issues very briefly. The first concerns the equipment that cyclists should ensure that they have: a helmet, proper lights and luggage storage. This is not observed by many cyclists. It is not part of the law and anyone who has travelled by car in traffic in London, and who can see cyclists without those elementary precautions to protect themselves, must be concerned. In particular, the experiment launched by the current Mayor of London, the so-called Boris bikes, has presented a problem. There is no warning to visitors, many visitors who use those bikes are not wearing helmets and at night the bicycles do not always have proper lighting. There should be a warning before those cycles are rented and it should be a condition of operation of sites that helmets are provided.
	The second issue concerns drivers. It should be a condition of the award of a driving licence that the potential driver is aware of good practice in relation to cyclists on the roads. As for heavy goods vehicles, the design regulations for cabs, in particular, which were agreed by the European Parliament in 2015, are not due to come into operation until 2022, I understand—perhaps the Minister could confirm this. That is too long. We need urgent action to prescribe nearside mirrors or electronic warning.
	The third issue concerns street design on new roads. I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Young: I understand that the Dutch experience allows traffic lights to provide a unique opportunity for cyclists and pedestrians to cross the road together. That is a very sensible initiative, which I very much hope the department will consider.
	Finally, the Conservative manifesto of 2015 talked about doubling cycling in this country and pledged £200 million for safer journeys. I hope the Minister will comment on progress on these two promises.

Lord Scott of Foscote: My Lords, I, too, add my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for promoting this debate. I agree with everything that has been said but I must declare my own interest in cycling. I have used a bicycle in London for many years, mainly to get from my flat in Camden to my place of work. Originally it was Lincoln’s Inn, then the Royal Courts of Justice, and for the last few years it has been the Palace of Westminster. So I come and go on my bicycle, and every now and again, something happens and I fall off. It is always a lesson, because it is nearly always my fault—I have not seen a hole in the road, or something of that sort.
	The question is on what action the Government should take to promote cycling as a safe means of transport. I do not think that this is a matter for the Government. Cycling will never be absolutely safe; not many things in life are. The rider can take many more steps than the Government can to ensure his or her safety. He can, as has been said, make sure that his bicycle is in good condition and that if it is dark he has functioning front and rear lights. When I bicycle in London I always wear a highly-coloured fluorescent overshirt thing—I do not know what the right name for it is. It is an appalling-looking garment but at least it makes me visible.
	Two other things that strike me as important are that the cyclist should have good eyesight and good hearing. Your eyes protect you against dangers in front of you and your ears protect you, to a large extent, against dangers coming up behind you that you can hear. Many cyclists in London, particularly the young, wear earphones so that they can listen to music while they cycle. I am sure that that is fun for them and makes their journey more enjoyable, but it is highly dangerous. If you cannot hear what is coming up behind you, you are not making use of one of your important senses. But there it is; I suspect that they know this. One can always see what is coming towards one and can take appropriate steps and ought to be able to hear what is coming up behind—motorbikes in particular make a huge noise and often come very close.
	This debate asks the Government to take action to promote safe cycling. I do not know that it is their job. I think that it is the job of cyclists to look after their own safety and to take the steps that are necessary for that purpose. They should ensure, as has already been said, that their bicycle is in good condition. They would be well advised to wear clothes that cover their arms and legs with material that will protect them against grazing when, as may always happen, they fall on to the tarmacadam. If these precautions are taken, the risk from riding a bicycle in London will reduce to an acceptable point.
	There will always be some risk: there is some risk in practically anything that one does that is fun. But I have found bicycling in London, from Camden to the Inns of Court, the Royal Courts of Justice and the Palace of Westminster, highly enjoyable and a very convenient method of travel. There is some risk, and there always will be—but it has to be measured and for my part, I enjoy the experience and I would not want to stop it.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I declare an interest as a bicyclist. I cycled to my local village school when I was a boy and I have been cycling in London for many years. I remember cycling around Hyde Park Corner before there were traffic lights—that was a hazardous business at the best of times. I am also a motorist, so I fulfil the criteria that my noble friend who introduced this good debate mentioned of somebody who might be able to take a slightly wider perspective.
	We undoubtedly have a lot to learn from the Dutch and the Danes and I agree with much of what has been suggested. But I follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, in saying that this is not solely a matter for the Government, or for local government. It is also a matter for cycling groups and cyclists themselves. It would be a massive step forward if some of the cycle groups acknowledged that they have a problem which they have to face up to. My noble friend Lord Freeman mentioned some of the basic elements.
	I used to travel a lot on the Underground but since my accident I go more often by car as a passenger. I am horrified by the bicycle chase down Victoria Embankment at rush hour. Mixed up in some very sensible bicyclists are a whole lot of mad ones texting, wearing earphones, listening to music, not concentrating and not riding in the bicycle lane but swerving across the middle lane. They are a real hazardous menace. The Government’s policy must suit all road users, not just one type. If bicyclists and bicycle groups would acknowledge that they have a problem to sort out, a lot of us would be much happier.
	In mentioning that policy must be made for all road users, it is interesting to note that in Kensington Gardens one of the paths that bicyclists use has been dug up and had cobbles put in the middle. I presume that this is a bicycle-traffic calming measure. I say “presume” because there was nobody in the Royal Parks office this afternoon when I rang and the duty manager refused to talk to me—but I will follow that up separately.
	Having spent the recent past in a wheelchair, I can say that cobbles are a nightmare. Kensington Gardens is one of my favourite walks. When I walk here with my wife, as I often do, we go down that path. If she is pushing me in a wheelchair, it will be a nightmare; it will be hard to push and it will be pretty darn uncomfortable for me. If they are cycle-calming measures, they have not been properly thought through—and nor have the interests of everyone else who uses that path been taken into account.
	I want to hear from the Minister. As so much has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, and my noble friend Lord Freeman, I will terminate my remarks. I just plead once again for the cycle groups to be more realistic and not just say it is always somebody else’s fault.

Baroness Flather: My Lords, I thought that I would be the only one to say that it is also the responsibility of cyclists to look after themselves. They should also take care of other road users, who should take care of them, too.
	I am very lucky to have a driver. Often when driving in London, having come from Maidenhead, where I live, we have one or two shocks from cyclists doing things that are totally unacceptable. I know that everybody says it is the few, but while this may be so, it is the few motorists, the few cyclists and the few pedestrians who cause problems for everybody else. It is very common to see cyclists who do not give hand signals. That is not unusual at all. I have had cyclists overtake my car when we are trying to turn right, we have signalled and there is nothing coming from the other side, so it is to be expected that we would want to turn right. Okay, we are careful. We do not knock them down. But it is important that they follow the same rules. They often do not stop for red lights. They need to follow the same rules as we do.
	I wrote to the mayor about it and he talked about some kind of training programme. I do not know whether it would be voluntary or compulsory. I think that it should be compulsory for all cyclists in a big city such as London, because everybody needs to know what they should and should not be doing, and what makes things dangerous for them and for other road users.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I take my inspiration this evening from my former colleague Julian Huppert, who was largely responsible for the Get Britain Cycling report.
	The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, referred to Holland. Last year I went to northern Italy. There is some true inspiration to be found there. I was at Lake Garda and the image of a man cycling up an Alp—a gradient of eye-watering proportions—while talking to his mate on his mobile phone will stay with me for a long time. But what was more impressive was the city of Parma. It has a medieval heart but it is a heavy industrial city with lots of big lorries, and it is a city in which cycling, motoring and walking are fully integrated. People of all ages coexist at junctions—on Italian roads. I commend it. I do not know why the people of Parma have cracked this and we cannot, but they have.
	I will talk briefly about funding. There is a real problem at the moment with the Local Sustainable Transport Fund coming to an end and the access fund coming into being from 2016. The Minister and I had an exchange about the amount of money yesterday but the key problem is that the staff employed by local authorities to teach cycle safety to children, but also at weekends to adults, are likely to be lost because of the uncertainty of funding from March this year. As a woman who after 30 years of inactivity got back on a bike, it was going along to my local authority training scheme that gave me the confidence to get back on a bike and to cycle in London.
	It is not that there are not sources of funding. There are lots of different pots of money. There is the Highways England cycling fund, Bikeability, the cycle city ambition grants, the access fund and the Local Growth Fund. What there is not is any clarity about how they all fit together and how local authorities can best access them. I wonder whether the Minister can give some clarity on that.
	Secondly, will the Minister accept that for those local authorities, particularly outside London, that really do want to make progress on this, getting access to top design and to information about what works is very important, particularly these days when local authority budgets are stretched? Although there are good examples—TfL and the Welsh Assembly have come up with really good designs—getting national guidelines that would bring down the cost of implementing good design and good practice around the country is quite difficult for local authorities. I wonder whether across the many government departments that have responsibility for this there might be some joined-up thinking.
	I agree with the many noble Lords who have said that it is only when people feel safe that they will cycle. In some cases that means bringing in dedicated cycle lanes. In some cases that is not possible and it is about ensuring that cyclists, HGV drivers and car drivers all understand how best to preserve the safety of everybody on the roads.
	Following the Olympics, we really do have a legacy for cycling in this country. We have the ability to make a small investment that will reap great rewards, not least for the National Health Service in terms of the health gain that will come from it. All we need from this Government is a bit of joined-up funding and leadership to enable those local authorities that want to work on this to do so, and to take inspiration so that we can continue to beat the Italians at the Olympics.

Lord Rosser: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, on securing this debate.
	The number of pedal cycle deaths a year currently stands at 113 and has remained between 104 and 118 since 2008. The most recent annual figure for the number of pedal cyclists killed or seriously injured stands at 3,514, which was an 8% rise on the previous year. Those figures on fatalities and serious injuries also need to be looked at in the context that the most recent annual figures show that, while 36% of cyclists cycled mainly on the roads, 28% cycled mainly on pavements, cycle paths or lanes; 22% mainly off the roads, such as in parks; and 13% on a variety of surfaces. Thus a considerable percentage of cyclists are cycling mainly in an environment that one would not normally associate with posing a considerable potential risk of either fatalities or serious injuries to cyclists.
	The Government have said that they will reduce the number of cyclist fatalities each year—by how many? What is the target reduction in the number of such fatalities against which the Government, and we, can judge the success or otherwise of their policies on safer cycling? How much do the Government intend to invest each year specifically on cycling safety improvements as opposed to general road safety improvements benefiting all road users?
	The Government have said that they are committed to creating,
	“an environment which encourages cycling and where cycling, along with walking, is the norm for short journeys or as part of a longer journey”.
	The Government intend to bring forward a cycling and walking investment strategy in England, with publication scheduled for the summer, following public consultation. Can the Minister say to what extent this investment strategy will address improving safety for cyclists and thus promoting cycling as a safe means of transport?
	The value of improving safety is considerable, not just in financial terms but, perhaps rather more importantly, in human terms. When I was on the police service parliamentary scheme, I spent a day with the traffic police. Part of the day was spent at the scene of a cycling fatality in central London, where an adult male cyclist had ended up under the wheels of a lorry. Identification was found on the cyclist, including a photograph of, I believe, two young children. As one of the officers said to me, it was going to be a heart-breaking moment for his family when they were told what had happened, but also a very difficult moment for the officer who had to go to the home address and break the news.
	A Department for Transport paper, Infrastructure and Cyclist Safety, stated that,
	“Of all interventions to increase cycle safety, the greatest benefits come from reducing motor vehicle speeds”.
	The paper identified the potential benefits of segregated networks for cyclists but also noted evidence that,
	“cyclists may be exposed to heightened risk where cycle networks intersect the general highway network”.
	Do the Government have a view on what measures give best value for money in terms of improving cycling safety, and will the cycling investment strategy to be published in the summer address this question?
	I am sure that we all welcome the increase in the number of cyclists and the number of journeys being made on a pedal cycle. But as the title of the debate implies, one of the biggest boosts to cycle usage will be to take measures to increase the public’s perception of cycling as a safe means of transport.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I join all other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Young—a former Secretary of State for Transport—for securing this debate and bringing forward a very important issue, which is a key priority for this Government. As he and other noble Lords acknowledged, this is something that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has often talked about. I join my noble friend Lord Young in acknowledging the words and indeed the actions of my colleague at the Department for Transport, my honourable friend Robert Goodwill. Robert is one of those people who not only cycles but puts other Ministers to shame by taking the stairs to the fifth floor at the DfT. We all live in awe of him and I suppose, like others, would seek to emulate him.
	During this debate, we have also been on a journey across Europe. I am reminded of many of my early travels to the subcontinent. If you go across the likes of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, I still do not know how cars manage to avoid hitting each other, but within that traffic were many cyclists who had a great knack of avoiding such collisions. I raise that point not just for a lighter moment but to reflect that cycling is a mode of travel important to people’s livelihoods and to the economy.
	This Government want to make this country a walking and cycling nation—a place where people routinely make short journeys or stages of longer journeys by walking or cycling. We have a vision of streets that support safe cycling and walking. We are seeing this in some of our cities, with an increasing number of people who choose to incorporate these activities into their lifestyle. As several noble Lords pointed out, they already do so elsewhere, in the Netherlands and Denmark to name but two countries, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, pointed out, in Italy as well.
	To help us realise this vision, we have introduced, as noble Lords have acknowledged, a statutory obligation to produce and update a cycling and walking investment strategy. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, noted, after consultation this will be introduced in the summer. I can confirm that it will be not a draft but a final version of the Government’s strategy in this respect. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that, without prejudging the full contents of what is as yet an unpublished document, safety will be a key feature of this strategy.
	I shall outline some of the initiatives that the Government have taken forward. Britain’s roads, as we all acknowledge, are amongst the safest in Europe, but the Government, and indeed others, are not complacent and we can and will do more. Despite this, there is a perception, as we have heard from various noble Lords, that cycling is less safe than it actually is. Looking at 2014, there was one cyclist death for every 34 billion miles travelled. This is fairly comparable with walking, which sees one person killed for every 39 billion miles.
	Notwithstanding these statistics—and we can talk about statistics—I totally subscribe to the point that one cyclist death is one too many. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked for an ambition and a target. I cannot give him a percentage figure, because I think that would be the wrong approach—we want to see the eradication of all cycling deaths. Working in partnership with different parties, including local government in London and in other cities, we want to eradicate cycle deaths altogether. That is an ambition that the Government or indeed anybody need to set themselves. I emphasis to noble Lords that the death of any person on the road, whether a cyclist or not, is one death too many.
	The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, talked about “Two wheels good, four wheels bad”. When he was talking in those terms, I was reminded, as a father of three children, that when it comes to bicycles my family use four wheels, three wheels and two wheels: two wheels for my daughter, who is 10, four wheels for my son who is three and a half—two plus two with the training wheels makes four; I am reasonably good at maths—and three wheels for a tricycle. That represents the generations that embrace cycling. Perhaps there is a lesson that I can learn from my own children. I count myself as one of those who is probably embracing cycling in the teaching of it by ensuring that my children learn to cycle.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, pointed out the importance of education and training. I was a beneficiary of the cycling proficiency tests offered in schools. I am delighted that the Government continue to support it and have recognised it through additional funding of the £50 million for the Bikeability scheme.
	As we all recognise, cycling is a form of transport that has positive benefits for the health of the cyclist, for the environment and for the economy. The cycling economy is worth £2.5 billion per annum and 23,000 people are directly employed in bicycle sales. Every year 3 million bicycles are sold in the United Kingdom.
	I assure your Lordships, in particular my noble friend Lord Young, that the Government are fully committed to creating and promoting a safe environment for all road users, including cyclists. As I have set out, achieving this vision is by no means straightforward. I acknowledge and align myself to the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, and the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, as well as my noble friend Lord Caithness, that this is not just about the Government but that the Government have a key role. The strategy is part of that and involves manufacturers of technology, the police and, as noble Lords have pointed out, cyclists themselves. Lighting on bikes is important. Visibility jackets also help.
	The Government are continuing to provide investment to promote the take-up of cycling. In 2010, for every person in this country £2 was spent supporting cycling; spending on cycling is currently £6 per person. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked me specifically for a breakdown of the figures vis-à-vis the £1.39 that he cited. I shall write to him on that. This is a mixture of commitments from central government but also contributions reflecting the priority that local authorities are giving to this issue. There was mention that this may be London-centric, but when we look across the country we see that cycling ambition cities include Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle, Norwich and Oxford.
	The Chancellor’s Autumn Statement committed us to investing over £300 million to cycling and walking programmes over the life of this Parliament. This includes £114 million for delivering the Cycle City Ambition programme in full and the £50 million to which I have already alluded for the Bikeability programme. I take on board and will take back the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, as to further clarity. The moneys are often there and it is about finding the best route of sourcing those moneys.
	Talking of funding, other sources of long-term funding include £580 million for a new access fund for sustainable transport that the noble Baroness mentioned. That includes £80 million of revenue funding and £500 million of capital funding through the Local Growth Fund. This means everyone who wishes to can invest up to £10 per head in cycling, as these cycling ambition cities are showing. We also know that local enterprise partnerships are already doing a lot to deliver better facilities for cycling and walking, investing over £500 million of the £4 billion allocated to transport so far.
	In the mean time, my department continues to oversee the delivery of existing programmes. I have talked about the cycling ambition cities. We are also investing over £200 million to deliver cycling networks including, as noble Lords have suggested, the Dutch model—Dutch-style segregated cycle lanes—in Cambridge and new strategic routes in Greater Manchester. Elsewhere, Highways England’s cycling strategy, launched in January 2016, outlines its plans to provide a safer, integrated and more accessible strategic road network for cyclists and other vulnerable road users. This includes investing £100 million in 200 cycling schemes between now and 2021.
	I have mentioned the role of local authorities, and we have heard today about different initiatives that can be taken. They have the flexibility to introduce 20 miles per hour limits. Since 2011, all English local authorities have been able to provide Trixi mirrors at road junctions to make cyclists more visible to drivers and to install “No entry except cycles” signing to facilitate contraflow cycling.
	The department has also been working on revising the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, which will introduce a number of improvements to help local authorities provide for cycling. We have also seen these on our travels. My department has worked with TfL and other local authorities to use some of them ahead of new regulations coming into force—I refer to cycle boxes. Local authorities have also been given guidance to help them to design good schemes within current legislation through Local Transport Note 2/08, which includes best practice highlighted by noble Lords.
	There are many schemes under way. I mentioned Bikeability training and education. As we have heard from this debate, this is evolving. Our strategy will underline the importance that this Government attach to cycling. We shall work across the board and, as the strategy comes to fruition, we want to share good practices and ideas—I invite noble Lords to do so—to ensure that we do create that kind of environment that we all desire.
	It would be remiss of me not to mention the TfL Safer Lorry Scheme. Again, we need to learn lessons from such initiatives that can be shared as we go down the route of devolution. I believe devolved authorities can share and learn, and such practices should be shared across the board.
	Finally, I turn to a point that has been raised in previous debates and was raised today by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, and my noble friend Lord Caithness. Although the majority of cyclists are law-abiding, we recognise there is a proportion who do not obey the laws, for example by cycling without lights or in a dangerous manner or by disobeying traffic signals. This type of behaviour represents a danger to pedestrians and other road users but also to the cyclists themselves. The enforcement of traffic laws is an important part of protecting the safety of all road users.
	This has been a very informed, passionate and valuable debate. In my contribution, I hope I have illustrated that the Government see promoting cycling as a safe means of transport as an important issue. With the actions the Government have taken in the past and those through which we continue to build on that, please be assured that the Government are committed to focusing our efforts to promote cycling as a healthy, safe and enjoyable activity for people of all ages.

Trade Union Bill

Bill Main Page

Committee (2nd Day) (Continued)

Amendment 65
	 Moved by Lord Campbell-Savours
	65: Clause 10, page 6, line 44, at end insert—
	“(1A) A trade union must make available to a member who has given an opt-in notice under section 84 (contributions to political fund from members of the union) a form enabling that member to claim tax relief on their contribution to the union’s political fund.
	(1B) Any member who fills out and returns a form under subsection (1A) to a trade union shall be granted tax relief on his or her contribution to the union’s political fund.”

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, Amendment 65 is on the question of tax relief on the trade union levy. This is not the first time that I have raised this issue in this House. I first raised it on the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill in 2014. On that occasion, I sought to insert into the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 a new section which provided tax relief on small donations to any political party, and the response of Ministers was to point to the stalled inter-party talks on political funding and the need to find a consensus. There had been seven discussions on political funding, culminating in no reform and a Statement in July 2013 from the Deputy Prime Minister in the last Parliament, in which he said,
	“it is now clear that reforms cannot go forward in this Parliament”.—[ Official Report , Commons, 4/7/13; col. 62WS.]
	That Statement effectively blocked off any sensible discussion on the issue that I wish to raise today of tax relief on the trade union political levy.
	I am arguing today that the political levy should be paid out of pre-tax income and not post-tax income. I have to admit that there is some confusion as to whether the levy, as it currently stands, is in or out. My latest advice is that it is out of net income, whatever the circumstance. I am seeking a standardised practice among all trade unions. The proposal I make is built on the gift aid scheme, which applies to donations to charities. I argue that there is much in the work of trade unions which is essentially charitable, as is the case with much of the work carried out by political parties.
	In reality, the political levy, per member, is quite small—very often in the region of £10 per member or less. It would therefore be for the convenience of all concerned if the opt-in notice included the application for tax relief on the levy, signed by the applicant member concerned. It would be even more helpful to the whole administrative process if trade unions could opt to have group submissions to HMRC on behalf of each of their members, thereby avoiding the burden for both the Revenue—I keep referring to the Revenue, as I am very old-fashioned on these matters—and the union of handling the tax relief applications individually.
	I suppose it could be argued that a very small minority of members do not meet the standard rate threshold for the payment of tax. This, I suggest, could be dealt with by a special Revenue concession based on the presumption that the applicant is a basic-rate taxpayer. Otherwise, dealing with such cases would be administratively burdensome. A tax relief on the levy would certainly help incentivise the take-up of opt-in notices. I would like to think that the Government would not be so malevolent as to resist my amendment on the basis that it would be an incentive for the submission of opt-in notices.
	There is a great danger that the change from opt-out to opt-in will reduce the donor base. That should not be the objective. We should all be signing up to the widest possible donor base and making every attempt to foster active forms of political engagement, with money and contributions paid to political parties. That is precisely what President Obama set out to do in America inviting, as he did, a system of mass but smaller donations to his political campaign, as indeed has Mr Bernie Sanders.
	Now the Government might again argue the need to resume talks on political funding—that is to say, talks that complement those going on in the special Select Committee currently considering these clauses. I believe we need to break the logjam and begin legislating now. What better to start with than the union levy, which under this Bill is a voluntary contribution to a political party? The breakdown and the inevitable stalemate that followed led to the 2007 review undertaken by Sir Hayden Phillips. It was hoped that this review would lead us out of the impasse but its report indicated only the nature of the problem and did not provide a solution. However, the review did pave the way for further talks between the three main political parties under Hayden Phillips himself. Again, the inevitable happened as the talks broke down in October 2007.
	In May 2010, after aborted discussions and a general election, a reference to the problem surfaced in the coalition agreement, where it said:
	“We also agree to pursue a detailed agreement on limiting donations and reforming party funding”.
	The coalition agreement was followed in July 2010 by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which re-energised the debate with its 2011 report. The report was accompanied by caveats in the appendices from both Labour and Conservative party representatives. Indeed, we were back on the old merry-go-round, with caps on contributions and trade union donations, and the usual differences and suspicions. Two months later the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee despairingly called for a resolution of the problem to help avoid further party funding scandals, not that that plea had much of an effect.
	Then, Mr Francis Maude—now the noble Lord, Lord Maude, at that stage a Minister in the other place—announced a new series of talks. In his statement establishing the talks he said:
	“We could also look at how to boost small donations and broaden the support base”,
	for the parties. There were seven meetings in 2012 and 2013 which, as I have already explained, predictably collapsed. My amendment does exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Maude, called for in his statement. It seeks to broaden the support base by preserving and boosting small donations, in this case through the machinery of trade union political levies. I beg to move.

Lord Leigh of Hurley: My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours—which is not something I thought I would hear myself say. To put it in context, I declare my interest as a treasurer of the Conservative Party. Having supported the amendment, I have to say that I do not think the right place for it is in this Bill—this Bill is not about party funding but about trade union reform. But I welcome the direction of his remarks. Party funding is a big issue on which, frankly, there will not be much agreement in the near future but there are some very small steps that we can take together—and I have discussed this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, as well. I think there is general consensus about gift aid—or matched funding from government, which is in effect what it is. Part of the reason for my support is not the financial benefit to all parties but to explain to the public and encourage them to understand that supporting a political party is a public duty. It is a good deed. It is something for the benefit of the entire country and community and moves the dial away from people, unions, business and individuals being perceived as bad people who just wish to support a party financially.

Lord Stoneham of Droxford: I said earlier that I would not make many interventions but I was interrupted when I was speaking before dinner. I am not quite sure what procedure we are following here because I thought we were going to have the response to the previous debate after dinner. Are we having a collective here or something?

The Earl of Courtown: A composite.

Lord Stoneham of Droxford: It is a composite. Right. Can I just make a couple of small points on this issue?

The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, perhaps I can just interrupt—I beg the forgiveness of the House. We are dealing with matters that were raised before dinner in the next group.

Lord Stoneham of Droxford: So we are having a debate on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours? That is fine. That is what I was expecting; I just hoped that we were not missing the Minister’s reply.
	We are in favour of examining all forms of reform of political donations. The only point I would like to make to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is that I am not quite sure how gift aid would work. Obviously there would be a huge advantage to the Conservative Party with its big donations and the big tax relief it could get on them. That would be a major problem because it would disadvantage the Labour Party and it would disadvantage us. Noble Lords may laugh, but I wondered why the noble Lord was supporting it. I know why. The Conservative Party has worked out that a 40% rebate on £20 million gives it £8 million and the Labour Party’s £15 million gives it £6 million, so the Conservative Party has an advantage of £2 million. These are just rough figures.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I have never done this before: intervening on a speech just after I have spoken. I am being absolutely blunt and frank here. This was the argument I had with my own party when we were dealing with these matters on previous occasions. We should not consider the funding arrangements of other political parties. They are not our business. The Tories will always raise the money they need, because they have the donor base. The fact that they may gain from some tax concession should be irrelevant to other political parties which need to raise money. The noble Lord should not worry about what they get; we should be more worried about the funding of our own political parties. If they benefit, it is simply coincidental.

Lord Stoneham of Droxford: I accept the point that the noble Lord makes, but the key issue is that if we are looking for a fair settlement, we have to do something about the cap on donations. That is the issue. If we are dealing with the political levy, we have to do something about the cap. That is why the Conservatives were worried in the debate the other day, because they know that if they make and pursue an attack, as they are, on the Labour Party and the political levy—I will get a laugh for this, because I know that this Bill is not about political funding of particular parties—it is open season. It is very unfair when they have the generous funds that they already have that they are making it easier for themselves.
	We would say, however, that there is plenty of scope here. Let us not forget that there is a lot of political funding currently going on from the state. There is the £40 million spent on the post system during the general election, the Short money, subsidies for party conferences and money for policy development. There is a lot of money currently being spent from government funds on political parties.
	The other area where we think we could get money from, if we are not going to allow taxpayers to contribute to political parties, is government political funding for advertising. There is a huge pot of money there, and just a few million pounds of it could contribute to solving this problem. If that is in the form of tax incentives, that is fine, but let us also make sure that we have an equitable resolution of these problems that does not give political advantage to one party or another.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, I say at the outset that we have got ourselves into a bit of a pickle over procedure; I know that the Government Whip is not in his place at the moment. It is rather unusual for the Minister to agree to answer one debate when responding to another. I hope that that does not mean that she will avoid any of the questions raised in the previous debate, however unusual the procedure that has been adopted may be. I also hope that she has found her folder: she told me in the Ladies that she had lost it, and I think that she would struggle to respond to some of the debates without it.
	I thank my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours for raising this issue, which he did with his usual tenacity and also his usual thoughtfulness. There is merit in discussing this further. Surprisingly, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Leigh—although not with his analysis—that this is probably not the right place to debate it. The noble Lord says that the Bill is not about the funding of political parties, but the amendment is about the political levy, which is in the Bill. If the amendment affects political parties because it discusses the political levy, so does the Bill—so that is a curious and tortuous reason he gives for not supporting it.
	The wider point is that my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours highlights why the issue of the political levy, which involves party-political funding and political funding of the work of trade unions, should properly be considered in the round, as it was by the Committee on Standards in Public Life when it looked at the issue. If we consider tax relief on those paying their contribution to the unions’ political funds, that has wider implications. To look at it in isolation from the other issues raised by the Committee on Standards in Public Life is wrong—as we have argued that these two clauses are wrong.
	My noble friend highlights the inadequacy of the Bill. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, on one point: there is a debate to be had about whether contributions to political parties or the political levy of a trade union are part of wider civic society and should be recognised as such. I suspect that the Minister feels nervous at the idea that trade unions could be regarded as part of civil society, from her earlier comments, but this should be fed into the overall debate on party-political funding. It is worthy of consideration, but today is probably not when we should be discussing these issues; the proper place would be in a debate on party-political funding.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for tabling this amendment and sparking this debate. He sought to build an analogy between trade unions and charities. It is, of course, true that unions do philanthropic good, as indeed do many companies. However, having said that, I am afraid that the rules on tax relief on voluntary donations are well established and very clear. They apply to charities. To qualify, an organisation must be recognised as a charity by HMRC and the independent Charity Commission. This tax relief does not apply to money that is used for political purposes.
	I agree with my noble friend Lord Leigh that this is not a matter for this Bill. As we have said, it is not about party funding. I am slightly less sure about his direction of travel. I was pleased to have a curtain-raiser from the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, with some of his thoughts on party funding.
	I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that this is not a matter for this debate. I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, when I was called, I was in a little bit of a pickle over procedure because I was quite surprised that my debate came as early as this. I thought I would be waiting another hour or so for it.
	I say to the Minister that this proposal has many supporters on her own Benches. When I was tabling my amendments in the Table Office those years ago, I always made sure that they were supported by Conservative Members. The resistance has actually always been on my own side, because people felt that if we went down the route of tax relief on donations to political parties, the Conservative Party would be the main beneficiary. It may well be, but it is completely irrelevant. What matters is that we preserve the contribution base and bring hundreds of thousands of new people and individuals into donating to political parties.
	The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and other noble Lords have said this is not the vehicle. It could be the vehicle in so far as the committee that is sitting in parallel, dealing with these matters, could make a recommendation for it. The Chancellor could then consider it in the next Budget. There is no reason why the Conservative Government should not take a far more liberal view on the issue of tax relief on political donations, when it has so much support in their own party. I am told privately that Prime Minister Cameron at one stage expressed support for the idea of capped donations to political parties with tax relief. When I proposed £100 originally in previous legislation, the word that came back was that there was a lot of support in the Government for it. I understand why, because they saw themselves as the major beneficiary.
	I thank my noble friend Lady Smith for her support from the Front Bench. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham. I am sorry if I leapt in on his response. I have never done that before but I thought I should deal with it at that particular point. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, for his clear and unequivocal support for my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 65 withdrawn.
	Amendment 66
	 Moved by Baroness Smith of Basildon
	66: Clause 10, page 7, line 11, leave out “three months” and insert “five years”

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords,—

Lord Callanan: My Lords—

Baroness Smith of Basildon: I have never yet been intervened on before I have said one sentence, but I will happily give way.

Lord Callanan: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I wonder if she could help me with something which is troubling me. I noticed when the noble Lord, Lord Collins, was speaking earlier that he was wearing a “I ‘heart’ unions” badge. I noticed in Prime Minister’s Questions earlier today that the right honourable gentleman the leader of the Opposition was also wearing one. I cannot help noticing that the noble Baroness is not wearing one. Should we read anything into this sartorial omission?

Baroness Smith of Basildon: I have to say to the noble Lord that that is one of the silliest interventions that I have ever heard in this House. I am really sorry—I have been left off the list; I did not get the memo this morning. Perhaps I should ask my noble friend Lord Collins if I could have a badge too, please, as it might calm the noble Lord opposite. Seriously, though, I think that it is a rather silly point to make on what I think is a serious issue, and I am not normally devoid of a sense of humour.
	Noble Lords will recall from debates at Second Reading and on my Motion to establish a Select Committee that there are really deep concerns about Clauses 10 and 11. Regardless of what any of us in this Chamber say, and as we may learn in the Select Committee, we believe that this Bill has an impact on trade union political funding and, as a consequence, on party-political funding. I use as my reference on that the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which addressed those points. It is hugely controversial and we will not resolve it across this Dispatch Box, whether or not I have a union badge on—I thought that my brooch was rather nice. I think that it is right that your Lordships’ House has sought a Select Committee to get further information on this issue and really get under it in a lot more detail than we will be able to do in this Chamber. Its report will enable us to have a much more informed discussion on Report, and I am looking forward to it.
	The noble Lord, Lord King, was right to raise earlier the process of discussing the overall principle underlining the two clauses. We did so at Second Reading and when we had the debate on the Select Committee, and I suspect that we will return to it again on Report. I want to touch on some of those principles today while addressing the clauses and the amendments tabled by me and my noble friend Lord Collins. I do not want to repeat the points that I made when we debated the Select Committee, but I think that some of them are worth emphasising and amplifying.
	The Government’s proposals are that every trade union should within three months or 12 weeks ensure that all the members who wish to contribute to the political levy of their trade union should have to opt in to the political fund rather than having the right to opt out. The purpose of the amendments in this group is to probe the Government’s intentions a bit further but also to recognise and demonstrate why the timescale is so unrealistic, unnecessary and unreasonable. It also seeks a government response to what we believe is a sensible and practical way forward, either through extending the transitional period to five years or delaying commencement, both of which would have the effect, in practice, of providing the time to plan and prepare for the changes in a sensible way. I appreciate that this is not to do with the overall, overarching theme, but I think that we have established that there is a lack of credibility and robustness about the principles underlining the Government’s proposals.
	The timescale of five years that we propose has not been plucked out of thin air. Unlike the Government’s proposals, and unlike this flimsy and inadequate impact assessment, we have taken the timescale from previous independent reports. The Committee on Standards in Public Life made similar recommendations, which allowed for changes to be made within five years. But let us be absolutely clear about those recommendations, which were made in the context of, and alongside, those three other recommendations that it envisaged would be acted on at exactly the same time. Those four recommendations, across the board on political funding, were made together. The committee’s report from 2011 said:
	“Failure to resist the temptation to implement some parts, while rejecting others, would upset the balance we have sought to achieve”.
	It was very clear—it sought not to advantage or disadvantage one political party over another but to have a balanced approach. That is what I find so offensive about the Government’s approach; they do not even pretend to seek a balanced approach but identify just one of four recommendations and seek to legislate on it while pretending that it does not have an impact on the very thing that the Committee on Standards in Public Life said that it did have an impact on. The report said:
	“Both as a matter of principle and to support its sustainability, the regulatory regime must be fair to all political parties, and widely believed to be so”.
	The Government have rejected that and sought to distil one part. I say to the Minister that there is nothing in what I have seen or heard from the Government that provides a rationale either for singling out this issue of the opt-in/opt-out, or for the timescale in which they wish to proceed with achieving the process of opt-in. I looked again and went through the Second Reading debate. In the noble Baroness’s comments, in her introduction and winding-up speech, there is nothing whatever about the timescale of three months or 12 weeks. She completely ignored that point—it was never mentioned. I went through the Explanatory Notes in case I had missed something. There is nothing there about why three months or 12 weeks is a legitimate timescale. Perhaps the impact assessment could help—there are enough pages here—but there is nothing in its content that gives a justification or rationale for a three-month implementation.
	The first question for the noble Baroness is why—not just with regard to this process, but why have the Government put forward three months or 12 weeks? What is it about this issue that is so desperately urgent that however the Government perceive the problem, it has to be resolved so quickly that it will inevitably be a hurried process and, undoubtedly, because of that, an unsatisfactory one.
	I have looked at the length of time that the Government normally give to bringing in legislation—to enact legislative changes. When the Government legislated that shops could not provide plastic bags without charge, the proposed change took eight times as long to be implemented as the Government are offering for this change to opt-in. Regarding banning the display of cigarettes in shops under the Health Act 2009, the coalition Government announced in 2010 that that would come in two years later for larger shops and five years later for smaller outlets. But again, there are just 12 weeks for the trade unions. The right-to-rent provisions in the Immigration Bill were first piloted with a two-year implementation period. Even bringing into force the provisions of the same-sex marriage Bill was given longer by the Government than they are offering the trade unions today.
	To understand why this timescale is so utterly unreasonable we have to understand, as my noble friend Lord Collins pointed out, how that change could be achieved. In effect, within three months, a trade union will have to make all the necessary rule changes, and inform all its members and officers. It will have to ensure that all paid and voluntary staff are fully apprised of the new requirements under the legislation, alongside the new training that is required to ensure that those are fulfilled. It will have to ensure that all union literature regarding membership and political funds is reprinted, that no incorrect or outdated forms are in circulation, and be sure that no errors can be made.
	It will have to write to every single member. For charities, the response rate for unsolicited mail remains around 1%. I would expect a little more reach with union members, although perhaps not. Perhaps the union will have to write to them more than once. There will also have to be considerable advertising and a familiarisation campaign to ensure that everyone is aware and to improve the response rate. It would have make changes to accounting systems and banking and change direct debits where necessary. It would no doubt be made easier by a payroll deduction—check-off in other words—but the Government will have banned that in the public sector, so that will not be available to them either. Despite this huge administrative burden and these enormous costs, the organisation is expected to do all that in three months, and the Government think that this will have no impact on their funding. What planet are Ministers on? Alongside that, we still have no definitive rationale from the Government on what the problem is that they are seeking to resolve. Other than an ideological one, opt-out is considered preferable to opt-in by the Government.
	I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, is not in his place. I would have to apologise to him yet again. When he was in the Chamber and we were debating whether a Select Committee should look at the wider principles underlining this, to try to establish the Government’s rationale for the proposals in Clauses 10 and 11, he asked whether the Minister could,
	“give us some examples of where people have been prevented from opting out of the political fund and explain the extent of the problem? Can she also explain why this cannot be achieved by some kind of agreement of a code of conduct with the trade unions?”.
	The Minister replied:
	“My Lords, this is a Motion on procedure and I was not planning to go into the detail”—
	we have heard that before—
	“but I will certainly write to my noble friend and other noble Lords and we can discuss in Committee the sort of examples that he is talking about”.—[ Official Report , 20/1/16; col. 779.]
	I shall repeat that request because I am still struggling to understand the rationale and the detail. Can the Minister provide evidence of what exactly is the problem that they are seeking to resolve? I have seen the reply she sent to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, but all she does in it is emphasise exactly the same point the Government have made before, which is that they think it should be made easier for people to opt out.
	In her response to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, the Minister promised that there would be examples of prevention or of people being leaned on. We have some information from her on web-based applications forms. That is not quite the same as somebody being leaned on or prevented from opting out.
	The Certification Officer has given evidence to the Select Committee and we will see that evidence when it is published for your Lordships’ House. Is the Minister looking for her letter? I do not know whether she is aware of the point I am making. The Certification Officer has not upheld even one complaint that has been made about opt-out problems. If there is a great problem that has to be addressed and complaints that have been forwarded to the Certification Officer, why has not one complaint ever been upheld? I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, is not in his place as he might have chosen to intervene on me and I would have welcomed the opportunity to respond. If the Government wanted to increase transparency and this had nothing to do with political funding, they could have ensured a code of practice or even legislated to do that. Instead, they have gone down this completely different route, which is far beyond what could be required from what the Minister has said. The route the Government are taking is not to make it easier for people to opt out, but to make it illegal for people to opt out. It appears to make opting in as difficult, convoluted and complicated as possible in a totally unrealistic timescale.
	It is hard not to come to the conclusion that these changes and the restrictions, in the way they are to be made, are designed not to effect change, to give transparency or to make it easier to opt out, but to make that change as difficult as possible. That is the fundamental issue at stake here. Independent reviews have looked at this issue and recommended change, but alongside a number of other issues that recognise concerns about political funding that should be addressed together. That is the question the Minister must address. Of the four recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, why have the Government singled out just one and looked at it on its own and tried to say that it does not affect political funds and will not affect any political parties? That is not what the committee said. Why would an independent committee, such as the Committee on Standards in Public Life, look at trade union funding and the opt-out and opt-in issue if it considered that they did not impact on party political funding? The only reason it looked at this issue is because it impacts on party political funding, which is why it was extremely reasonable in saying to any Government that they should not deal with one of the issues on its own but with all four of them together.
	It is the totally unrealistic timescale that has let the cat out of the bag. If the Government were really concerned only with transparency and with making it easier to opt out—if that was their sole and genuine concern—there are far better, quicker and less expensive ways of dealing with that. That is not the proposal the Government have given us in the Bill.
	I have a number of questions for the Minister. It would be helpful to your Lordships’ House if she could explain the urgency of the problem perceived by the Government that has led to such an impractical and impossible timetable being brought forward. Can she tell us what penalties there will be for those who, despite their best endeavours, cannot achieve all that the Government ask within three months? Can she also give me some help as I read the impact assessment? On page 74, it states:
	“Our main estimate is that there will be no change in the number of members contributing to the political fund”—
	that is why the Government said there would be no difference. It continues:
	“We do not have reliable data to estimate any changes in the proportions contributing”.
	How can the Government say that there will be no change when they do not have any reliable data on which to base that estimate? If the Minister can enlighten me, that would be really helpful. Also on page 74, to justify that, it states:
	“However, we have conducted some sensitivity testing above examining the impact of changes to the proportions contributing to political funds”.
	Can she tell me what sensitivity testing is and how it is conducted?
	On page 75, on active opting back in, it says:
	“We have no evidence of whether there would be substantial attrition in membership participation resulting from the lapsing of active opting-in after five years. Therefore we have assumed no attrition”.
	We have no evidence and we do not know what will happen, so we assume that nothing will happen and nothing will change. How on earth can you make that assumption from having no evidence? It is the flimsiest and weakest impact assessment I have ever seen. Unless the noble Baroness can give a better explanation for her department’s impact assessment, I cannot see how anyone in this House can accept the proposal that she is putting forward. Can she give any other examples of such significant change where finances are involved—I say “where finances are involved” because it has to be very accurate and precise—where the Government have imposed change on such a short timescale? I have looked and I cannot find any. Before the Government brought this forward, they must have known it could be done, so I would be grateful for that evidence.
	A phrase I often use when talking about your Lordships’ House in a very positive way is that your Lordships are good at looking at the devil in the detail. We interrogate issues, we look under the issues and, unlike the other place, we go through an entire Bill line by line on any issue we wish to. We have the remit and we make the time to examine the detail that can make legislation effective or ineffective, or make it practical or impractical. It is what we do, and we do it well.
	But this is of a different order. It is not that the devil is in the detail; the devil is in the design. We find it difficult to understand what the Government are seeking to do, because what the Government tell us they are seeking to do could have been achieved so much more easily, more quickly and more cheaply by other means. Instead, the Government have chosen to go down this convoluted route, and that makes me question whether their motives on this issue are exactly as the Minister says. What the Government fail to understand is why so many people are concerned by the intent behind these two clauses. We are convinced that this legislation is being used as a Trojan horse for wider party political funding changes in the sole interest of the government party.
	If my words are harsh, it is because I am disappointed in the lack of evidence that the Government are providing for such a fundamental party political and partisan change. I hope the noble Baroness has answers to all the questions that I have raised, and I hope she will not duck, in some procedural way, the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Collins in the previous debate. Without answers to those questions, this Bill should not proceed.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, the House has great respect for the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition and for the speech that she has just made about amendments whose effect would be that these proposals would come in but over a longer timescale. Although she then dealt with the core issues behind the amendments—I understand entirely why in her position she felt it necessary to do so—this Committee is in some difficulty with the way in which the amendments have been grouped.
	I had not intended to speak until I had heard the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Monks, but I have a suggestion to make, although I do not know whether I can persuade him to do this. Would he be prepared to make his speech on his amendment in the debate on this group of amendments? The serious issue here is that the noble Baroness’s amendments deal with contracting in and contracting out but over a different timescale. I do not in any way seek to misrepresent her, but that is the core issue that we need to discuss.
	I myself have serious reservations. The noble Baroness will know—she has referred to it—that there is a considerable historical background to this matter, and the noble Lord, Lord Monks, has kindly provided me with material to remind me of the correspondence that I had when this matter arose before. It would be helpful to the progress of business and to the relevance of the speeches that no doubt a number of noble Lords on both sides wish to make if we could deal with the issue in that way. I would not otherwise have intended to speak because this is a more limited amendment on the timeframe in which these changes come in, whereas I want to talk about the general principle.

Baroness Burt of Solihull: My Lords, this transitional period of three months, during which the trade union member is treated as a contributor to the trade union before they must register the opt-in to the political fund, is clearly punitive and designed to inflict maximum damage on trade union funds.
	Much has been said tonight about the Select Committee which is to take evidence on the impact of this legislation on political funding. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned this, and I suspect that we may get a contribution from my noble friend Lord Wrigglesworth, who is a member of that committee. We have to await the report, but you do not need a report to understand what this three-month period will achieve.
	Let us take the example of the union Unite. It has 1.2 million members whom it has to approach within the three-month period. It has to speak to each one and ask them to opt in. If they do not opt in in time, the union is not empowered to deduct the money. If it does, one presumes that it will be acting illegally.
	Labour has proposed a five-year timescale. I wonder whether five years might be a little long but I understand the logic behind it, because within that period every member of the trade union will have the opportunity to renew their membership, and new members of the union will be covered by the opt-in as well.
	I do not want to get into the argument of how long the period should be, but I am supportive of the trade unions. If they have to do this, they need time to adapt, just as, if the Conservatives were in the same position regarding donations, we would want them to have a fair period of time in which to make the adjustment.

Lord Cormack: My Lords—

Lord Balfe: My Lords—

Lord Monks: My Lords, perhaps I may jump in. The procedure is a little muddled but I think that it makes sense for the general points to be made and for the Minister to reply at the end, provided that she replies to all the points made by my Front Bench colleagues.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord King, for the trailer for this speech, in which I shall talk about Amendment 68. The reason we have a bit of teamwork going on is that in 1984, when the noble Lord, Lord King, was Secretary of State for Employment, the then Government, under Mrs Thatcher, considered this very issue.
	Opting in was on the agenda, possibly, but they decided to ask the TUC to come up with a transparent scheme to ensure that people have the right to opt out. I call it the King-Murray agreement; Len Murray was the negotiator and I was his assistant and scribe on the job. They reached an agreement on opt-out, of which I have a faded copy from 30-odd years ago. We undertook to remind members about their right to opt out and to give them the procedure whereby they could do it. It was done by an information sheet, as it was called then, and we did it. As I say, that was 32 years ago, and we have never had any complaint in the TUC that this agreement has not been carried out, from members, from government—from either of the two major political parties—or from employers.
	As has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Collins, unions already have to ballot every 10 years on whether it is legitimate for them to have a political fund at all, and they have done that four times since 1984, most recently in 2014. If we are going to go down the deregulation route of two out for one in, then this is one of the ones that should go out at some stage. However, we are still doing the ballot and we have never lost one. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Collins said, we have actually put on some extra funds.
	I am expecting that the Government will say that the King-Murray agreement has not been honoured in full by the unions—I have seen the letter to which reference was made earlier. But the fact is that it has been carried out, and it has been carried out in various ways: by inclusion on the membership form, which more than half the unions do, and by reference on the union website. I dug out a copy of the Unite exemption form that I printed from the website, which makes it extremely clear. Unite, UNISON, USDAW and the GMB—the four largest unions, and 90% of the affiliated trade union membership of the Labour Party—provide it in a very prominent place on their websites, and with references to it in union journals and communications. Thirty-two years on, unions are still carrying out that agreement.
	Have there been any problems? None that I know of, and I have been around all those years, since carrying the bag into the office of the noble Lord, Lord King, for Len Murray. If there are any problems, and we are very ready to listen to those, we will take them up. If any union is not doing what it should be or what the four large unions are already doing, we will take them up on that; we will tell them what is at stake and that they need to get into line.
	My amendment seeks to provide for the drawing up of a code of practice on contracting-out—an updating of the King-Murray agreement, because obviously information sheets are not quite the same thing in the age of digital technology, websites and so on. In that way, much more cheaply, efficiently and effectively, and without any accusations of political partisanship from the Conservative Party, we could sort out any problems there are that the Government know about and we do not. That was the wise course taken by Mrs Thatcher and the noble Lord, Lord King, in 1984. They did not want to hit the Labour Party—and they could easily have done so at that time—or the funding base, but they did take on a particular issue, to which we responded.
	Despite the nice way that the Minister often puts it, I believe that the only possible explanation for this measure, a return to contracting-in, is an attack on Labour Party funding, the impact of which will be measured by the Select Committee. It is also, by the way, an attack on unions not affiliated to the Labour Party, which the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, has been championing, that have developed political funds since 1984 and get caught in this particular cross-fire, and quite unfairly too.
	Contracting in was introduced after the General Strike in 1927, and it poisoned the trade union mind, so much so that the very first thing that the Labour Government of 1945 did was to repeal it and go back to contracting out. I think it was Hartley Shawcross who said, at the other end of the corridor, “We are the masters now”—not a very pleasant thing to say, but that gives some sense of the bitterness that there was around the question of opting in. So I ask the Government to follow the examples of Winston Churchill in the late 1940s, who warned against interfering in the other parties’ funding mechanisms without agreement, and of Mrs Thatcher in the 1980s, to eschew any suggestion of political malice and to show some statesmanship.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monks, for responding to my invitation, which the Committee understood, and I hope that the noble Baroness, whose very proper and powerful speech I fully understood in connection both with the question of the technical amendment she had and the general point that she made as well, will also understand. I thought I might just intervene.
	We are in a bit of living history at the moment—I suppose that is how some people would describe me at this time—but it also involves another Member of this House who, sadly, for personal reasons cannot be here tonight; I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. He and I share responsibility for the actions that we took, in that he was Secretary of State after the election in 1983, inheriting a Conservative manifesto commitment that trades unions must take steps to ensure their members are fully aware of their statutory rights concerning the political levy and are able to exercise them freely. That was in the Conservative manifesto of 1983. Norman Tebbit, as he then was—the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—who was then Secretary of State for Employment, proposed that, in the absence of such steps by the trades union movement to ensure that members were able to exercise their statutory rights concerning the political levy freely, the Government would introduce measures to guarantee the free and effective right of choice whether to pay the political levy.
	Owing to the unfortunate resignation of our, sadly late departed and lamented, noble friend Lord Parkinson, there was a reshuffle in the Government and I then became the Secretary of State for Employment, inheriting these discussions which continued with Mr Lionel Murray—Len Murray, as everyone knew him, who then became Lord Murray. In the Trades Union Congress correspondence that I have, which was kindly provided by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, I see that he is “Lionel Murray”. I must say that his keeping of the TUC correspondence is very much better than my own personal records, which has been a great comfort. The correspondence is from General Secretary Lionel Murray, Deputy General Secretary Norman Willis and Assistant General Secretaries Kenneth Graham and—a promising newcomer—David Lea, who bears a striking resemblance to the noble Lord, Lord Lea, on the Benches opposite.
	The position at that time, when I saw the representative of the Trades Union Congress, was that unless we could be sure that every possible step had been taken to ensure that union members were aware of their rights, and had the opportunity to opt out, we would feel it necessary to act in this case. After considerable consultation within the trade union movement—I received a very full submission—I received a copy of the directions that were sent to the general secretaries of all affiliated unions, TUC regional councils and the Wales Trades Union Council. Those recall the conversations with the previous Employment Secretary,
	“to explore the steps that trade unions themselves might take to ensure that their members are fully aware of their statutory rights”.
	It goes on to say:
	“On 19 October, the General Council’s Employment Policy … met the Employment Secretary, whose central criticisms were that some unions with political funds did not take adequate steps toensure that their members knew that they could contract-out of paying the political levy or how they could do so, and that the practical arrangements for enabling members to contract-out were of doubtful efficiency”.
	The submission that came to me goes on to describe the arrangements proposed.
	The situation then was that a letter was sent with the TUC’s statement of guidance, which said:
	“Unions should draw up an information sheet about their political fund which should … state why the union has a political fund; … make clear that under the law a member has a legal right, if he or she so wishes, to opt out of payment to the political fund”.
	The statement of guidance makes the interesting point that the information sheet should,
	“make clear that members who ‘contract-out’ of paying the political levy must not by virtue of being exempt be excluded from any benefits of the union or placed under any disability or disadvantage compared with other members … except in relation to the control of the management of the fund”.
	The statement goes on to say:
	“This information sheet should be supplied to … new members on their admission to the union … any existing member on request to his or her branch, district or head office; and … all union members as soon as practicable after any ballot on the establishment of, and on the continuation of, the political fund”.
	That is the basis on which I then wrote to Mr Murray, the general secretary of the TUC, saying:
	“I have now had an opportunity to consider carefully the Statement of Guidance which you and the Chairman of the TUC’s Employment Policy and Organisation Committee submitted to me at our meeting yesterday”.
	I said in this letter—I will not read it all into the record —that I believed that,
	“the Statement sets out clearly the actions trade unions should take to ensure that their members are fully informed about their rights in relation to the political levy and to ensure that they are able to exercise them without difficulty or disadvantage”.
	Writing to Mr Murray, I said:
	“You told me that the Statement of Guidance would be put to the General Council for adoption in its meeting on 22 February. I welcome this and I can confirm that provided the Statement is adopted by the General Council and issued with its committed support, I would not propose to bring forward amendments to the Bill to change the present basis of the law regarding the payment of the political levy”.
	I wrote that 32 years ago. I thought that that was the right approach at that time. I did it in good faith and I accepted the assurances of the TUC—Baron Murray and the noble Lord, Lord Monks, who is present today—in good faith. The question to the Committee is: was that observed or did it lapse? Why has this issue reappeared now—exactly the issue we dealt with 32 years ago? I am not unsupportive of the amendment that the Leader of the Opposition moved about whether it should be over a much longer timescale, if it is to come in, because I also recognise that the early introduction of this could have very substantial, damaging effects.
	I do not normally quote Mr Jack Dromey, but in winding up on Third Reading of the Bill in another place, he claimed:
	“When I was treasurer of the Labour party in 2006, against the background of the secret loans scandal and the Hayden Phillips process, it was put to me, ‘Jack, if we impose a cap on donations of £5,000, it will bankrupt the Tory party.’ I said no to doing that because it would be immoral for one party to abuse its power to bankrupt another party”.—[ Official Report , Commons, 10/11/15; col. 345.]
	However, when I look at the records—this is where I genuinely plead a certain degree of ignorance—some of the information coming to me suggests that that undertaking given to me 32 years ago, on which I agreed not to proceed, has not been honoured; not in any dishonourable way, but in the lapse of time, perhaps in a situation, with change of Governments, where it was no longer thought to be so important. I just wonder why this situation has come again and how serious that issue is.

Lord Lea of Crondall: The noble Lord, Lord King, who is a very honourable man, has taken us through the history accurately, as far as I can see. The lacuna at the end is as follows; will he comment on it? If he has information that has come to him, has he given it to the Minister? If he has, it is for the Minister to reply as to why the Government have not raised it with the TUC. As far as I am aware, these matters have not been raised directly, with evidence, between the Government and the TUC.

Lord King of Bridgwater: This is a very serious issue—the issue of whether people are being conned, whether a lot of union members are being taken on and where the unions are not abiding by that original undertaking. This is the value of Committee stage; we will move on from Committee and the special committee which is now looking at these issues will, no doubt, consider these matters as well. My understanding, having looked at the impact assessment, is that there are now 5 million members paying the political levy, some £24 million—is that per annum? I am not sure—and some 25 political funds, of which 12 make no mention at all, in their membership, of the political fund. When new membership forms go out to people who are thinking of joining ASLEF, PCS, the RMT and the TSSA, there is absolutely no reference to people’s rights, as new members, to opt out of the political levy.
	Let me state my purpose in saying this. I do not know whether it is right or wrong; I have just seen a briefing to that effect and I think it is very important that we should check. I stand by the decision that I took; if it could be shown that there would be absolute observance of the rights of union members in these situations, and if this were honoured, it would certainly strengthen the argument against introducing this proposal. That is my concern.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: I would not normally intervene on the noble Lord, but I have listened with great care and I am grateful: his historical perspective is very helpful to this debate, from a practical point of view. He mentioned three questions in taking us to this point. One concerned the code of practice that he agreed with the late Len Murray: was it observed, did it lapse and what has changed? Those were the questions he asked.
	I will ask him whether he thinks there is a fourth valid question: if the Government consider that there is a problem, even along the lines he suggested from the briefing we have all seen—I am not going to question whether it is accurate or not—does he think that the legislation before us is the most cost-effective and admin-effective and efficient way of dealing with it? Or does he think there might be a case, with the TUC and the trade unions, for revisiting the code of practice to see if it needs to be updated in any way, or looked at to ensure that it is being effectively enforced?

Lord King of Bridgwater: The noble Baroness raises a serious point. The real difficulty is that others will stand up and say, “We tried that once; we tried the voluntary approach and the evidence is that it was not honoured”. The noble Lord, Lord Monks, speaking to the amendment, argued that we should get back into an improved code of conduct, but there will be many who will say that that approach was tried and it did not work: unions have not observed it and that does not give a lot of encouragement.

Lord Monks: This is the kernel of the issue: what is the evidence? I cannot vouch that over 32 years goodness knows how many unions have done everything perfectly. I am not arguing that. I am arguing that today—and it is not because of this particular clause—the four largest unions, with 90% Labour Party membership, are doing it. Those are the only unions I have managed to check since the Minister wrote the letter that the noble Lord is quoting. They have been doing it in different ways from time to time—that is for sure—but their websites are very clear. Unite’s rulebook says:
	“All members are encouraged to contribute to the union’s political fund but have the right to request exemption if they wish”.
	That is sentence one. Unison, GMB and USDAW’s websites say similar things.
	So where is the evidence? It is not on the application form—which, by the way, is not what the statement requires. For new members it does, but there is some flexibility on how to do it. I am satisfied that the websites of these four unions—the only four I have yet had a look at—are in line with the spirit and, more or less, the letter of the statement, though of course we did not have websites 32 years ago. I am satisfied they are in compliance with it. I am happy to discuss that with officials and get it properly researched, but this general blackguarding of unions by saying that they are not carrying out the agreement is disgraceful and I hope that the Government will think again.

Lord King of Bridgwater: I think that one of the difficulties with what the noble Lord, Lord Monks, said is that there are undoubtedly an enormous number of people who vote Conservative and are paying a political levy to the Labour Party because of inertia and ignorance. While he has said that it is not technically in the TUC code that a new member should be advised of his rights to opt out of the political levy, I would have thought that, on reflection, he may realise that every new member ought to be aware of their rights.
	I do not want to say any more at this stage because we will continue with this issue. I understand the seriousness of this for the Labour Party and I understand why Mr Jack Dromey said what he did in the quote that I gave. It is a very serious issue. It will be difficult to persuade the Government that the previous voluntary code—which I entered into in entirely good faith, and I am sure people from the TUC side did, too—has been honoured and respected by a number of individual unions. I do not just mean in the first five or 10 years after signing but on a continuous basis. Their failure to do that is perhaps why we are discussing this.

Lord Wrigglesworth: My Lords, as my noble friend said, I am a member of the Select Committee looking at Clauses 11 and 12. I had not really intended to intervene in this debate but on the specific amendment moved very eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on the three-month transition period, I felt it would be helpful to the Committee to recount some of the evidence that has been given to us since the committee started sitting.
	I declare an interest as the national treasurer of the Liberal Democrats over the past four years. I have been involved as a company chairman and company director for much of the past 25 years, but in the dim and distant past I was also a full-time trade union official and therefore have some understanding of the internal organisation, activities and culture of the trade union movement. Indeed, in those companies I have been associated with, we had extremely good relations with the trade unions and worked in partnership with them in a way that I think the best companies always do.
	But the debate this evening and all the evidence that has been presented so far demonstrate the truth of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, when he said that the Bill was a solution searching for a problem. That has been borne out in everything I have seen so far in the consideration of the Bill, both on the Floor of the House and in the Select Committee.
	First, I find it staggering, particularly against the background of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord King, that so far as one can tell there has been no consultation whatever with any of the trade unions—the TUC and trade unions are coming in to give evidence tomorrow, along with the Minister—or with the Certification Officer, who is going to be very profoundly affected by the Bill; I will come to that in a moment. It is therefore difficult to believe that this measure has been introduced with good will and the intention of seeking to move the facts forward in a way that will benefit union members and the general public interest.
	When one looks for where the pressure for these changes has come from, it is difficult to understand exactly who has been putting pressure on the Conservative Party for its manifesto and the Government in bringing this Bill forward. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned the complaints that had been adjudicated. The Certification Officer told the Select Committee that he had received only two complaints in five years—so there is no evidence that members of trade unions are jumping up and down, concerned about the current position within the trade union movement. I am not aware of—and I do not think other Members have been able to adduce any evidence that there has been—any pressure for the sorts of changes that are being proposed in this legislation.
	The administrative consequences for the unions are enormous. The consequences for the Certification Officer are also enormous. That is why the idea of a three-month transitional period is absolutely ludicrous. I do not know how they will be able to do it. This is from a Government, by the way, who are anti-regulation, who are trying to stop regulation and deregulate things. The amount of regulation that is being introduced in the Bill is quite enormous. The Certification Officer made that very clear to us. He is going to have to increase the size of his office, he estimates, very substantially. If I remember rightly, his budget is about £845,000 a year. It is going to go up to at least £2 million a year in order to deal with the consequences of the changes proposed in the Bill.
	It is going to have a very substantial impact on the administration of that office but an even bigger impact on the trade unions. One of the major changes is that complaints will be able to be made to the Certification Officer not only by trade union members but by any member of the public. Therefore, anybody with an axe to grind or a political view that they wish to take will be able to complain to the Certification Officer. Millions of people will have the right to complain to him. It opens the floodgates, frankly, to those who have a grievance against trade unions, the Labour Party or anything to do with the operation of the trade union movement. That is why the Certification Officer is extremely concerned about the impact that this is going to have on his office.
	Thinking about the impact that this is going to have on trade unions, the present proposal, which I found almost inconceivable in 2016, is that the notice should be given only in writing, in a letter—goodness me, I am beginning to hate letters, as I suspect a lot of other people in this Chamber and in the world are. The time-consuming business of writing things on paper and then putting them in the post or delivering them by hand is completely ludicrous. Why are the Government trying to go backwards in this way? There is only one rational explanation and that is that they are seeking to be as damaging as they possibly can to the trade union movement and to the Labour Party.
	A deeply partisan view is being put forward in this Bill. I hope that the Government will think again, particularly on this issue of the three months, but also on the issue of the method of communication and a number of other aspects of the Bill. I hope that the House will wait for the report of the Select Committee, which will help this debate enormously. We will have taken evidence from people such as the Certification Officer, the trade unions and the Minister and, if it is prepared to put somebody before us, from the Conservative Party. At the moment it is reluctant to allow anyone to appear before us. If we get all that evidence together we will be able to give a report to the House that will enable a detailed, effective debate on the provisions of this Bill.

Lord Balfe: My Lords, it is 36 years since I last agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Wrigglesworth, and at that time we were both in a different party. Perhaps
	I could add a few things. First, I have stood here before and said of certain things that they were in the manifesto and that we should respect the manifesto. This is one of the things in this Bill that is not in the manifesto, and I echo something that I think that my noble friend Lord Cormack said: if I were starting from here I would not have a Bill. But we have a Bill and it reflects some of the commitments in the manifesto.
	Perhaps I could add to my noble friend Lord King’s history book something a bit more up-to-date. I was fortunate enough to be expelled from the Labour Party in 2001, and I was even more fortunate to be rung up by the present Prime Minister’s office in 2007 after he became leader. He asked me to go to see him and I wondered what this was all about, because I had done no deals when I joined the Conservative Party. He said to me, “We have got far too distant from the unions. I would like you to get a link built between the trade union movement and the Conservative Party”. For five years, I worked away at that endeavour—with, I think, some success. The unions are never going to be the best friends of the Labour Party but there is no reason for them to be the enemies.

Noble Lords: The Conservative Party.

Lord Balfe: Sorry, the Conservative Party—it is probably true of the Labour Party as well if you look at it.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: I say to the noble Lord that old habits die hard.

Lord Balfe: There is no need for there to be a huge gap between us. One of the points that I put forward when I was working for the Conservative Party in conjunction with the 2010 manifesto was a suggestion that instead of contracting in to the political levy, one should be enabled on the box to tick any political party to receive part of the political levy donation—any party represented in Parliament, to prevent money going to fascists and the like. That was rejected by a very senior person who is still in the Cabinet, who said to me that it would be unfair unless we had an overall settlement of the party funding issue, because it would mean impacting on one party without having an overall effect.
	I have made my views clear in this House before: I do not believe in public funding of political parties. But this is not public funding. I do not queue up to get my hand in the gravy bowl to give money on the basis of the number of votes or things like that. In fact, if it were left to me, I should set a quite low limit of probably no more than £2,000 a year on donations to political parties. I happen to be suspicious: if people put more than £2,000 in, I say, what on earth are you after, then?
	We could look at the issue of contracting in or out, but only in the context of a reform of the system. The noble Lord, Lord Wrigglesworth, is absolutely right. Anyone who has had anything to with the trade union movement knows that three months is a ridiculous timespan. It is just not administratively possible, any more than it is possible to convert to not giving away plastic bags in three months: you cannot do it. I am afraid that this clause in the Bill is not motivated by anything other than a desire to take a partisan stand.
	One of our strengths in the House of Lords is that we can be a little more independent than in other places. I am very unhappy with this as a system, and the whole way it has been put forward is wrong. I am not against the principle of contracting in as part of an overall reform, but this is not the way to do it.
	The whole political fund thing of course went wrong. As my noble friend Lord King probably knows, it was brought in because they thought that if they gave the unions a chance, all the union members would vote against political funds. If I remember rightly, the trade union movement got a chap called Bill Keyes to organise political funds, and he did brilliantly: he almost doubled the number of unions with political funds. Not a single ballot has ever been lost. This could bounce back the other way if we pursue this particular reform. It is neither fair nor democratic, and we should think very carefully before we upset the democratic apple cart.
	I speak from this side of the House, from a party that is not affected. But we in the House of Lords, an unelected Chamber, to an extent have the strength to ask the Government to please go away and think again. We are not asking the Minister to give concessions tonight, because we realise that this is complex, but as it stands this is a very partisan move. I do not think that it has a place in a trade union Bill, and it is not in the manifesto. I appeal to the Government to think carefully and to at least allow a version of the noble Baroness’s amendment on to the book to give a decent amount of time so that this can be done properly.

Lord Cormack: My Lords, as one who has never been a member of the Labour Party, I entirely agree with the forceful plea made by my noble friend Lord Balfe. I very much hope that this does not come to a vote on Report, but I have to give notice that if it does, unamended, I will almost certainly vote against it, because it is intrinsically unfair. If one tries to stand for anything in public life, it should be for fairness. Of course my noble friend cannot announce concessions tonight, but I appeal to her to listen very carefully indeed to everything that has been and will be said.
	The way forward, if there is to be legislation, has probably been hinted at in the extraordinarily important speech made by my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater. As he said, he negotiated in good faith with the then leaders of the TUC and an agreement was reached, which clearly has been honoured. What is not clear—my noble friend himself made it abundantly plain that he did not know—is whether it has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance or more in the observance.
	I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt until it is proved otherwise, on the same basis that a man or woman is innocent until proved guilty. But if it does transpire that this has not been honoured as scrupulously as the noble Lord, Lord Monks, believes it has been and should have been, and if it is considered that there should be any legislation on this, it is the enacting of that code of practice that should follow. We should not have what is proposed in this Bill—and we most certainly must get rid of this utterly iniquitous three months. It is quite wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Wrigglesworth, made a very effective and telling speech on this.
	I would just say—in parenthesis, as it were—that it is a pity in many ways that we are having this debate tonight because I would like to have had it after having read the report of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on which the noble Lord, Lord Wrigglesworth, and a number of other very distinguished colleagues are sitting at the moment. In a sense we are having this debate in a bit of a vacuum. The House of Lords set up the committee for this specific and special purpose.
	For reasons that I explained on the day—and I believe they were respected by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—I did not vote for it. I was worried about the time limit. Nevertheless, your Lordships’ House voted with a very significant majority to establish the committee. It has been established. It has a most experienced and distinguished chairman and I gather from talking to colleagues that it is making progress. I think we are being precipitate—I do not blame anybody—in having this debate tonight. We need to reflect on what the committee reports and on what it recommends. To that degree I have a completely open mind as to what precisely the solution should be.
	Having heard my noble friend Lord King, I have made one suggestion that I think might be a way forward—but it might well be that it is completely blown out of the water by what the committee says and what your Lordships’ House decides. But I am utterly and completely convinced that in almost 46 years in the other place and in your Lordships’ House I have never seen a clause in any Bill, or a couple of clauses, that smack more of unfairness. It can do no good to the reputation of your Lordships’ House or that of Parliament unless it is altered—and altered very significantly indeed.
	I said earlier this evening that I do not see an urgent need for the Bill—but the Bill was in the manifesto and I accept that we have it. There are things in the Bill to which I do not object and there are things that are being sensibly, moderately and modestly discussed in your Lordships’ House that could well result in some material and proper benefit and change. But no party in government should ever take a step that incapacitates another political party in a democracy. That is inimical to the true democratic process. We should all recognise that.
	Whatever the intention was, and let us assume it was the best, the result of this would be to hole below the waterline a great political party that has contributed much to the history of our nation and to do it at a time when that political party is in some difficulties—difficulties in which I, as a democrat, do not rejoice because a strong opposition with a coherent set of policies is essential to the functioning of any parliamentary democracy. To do it, and above all to do it at this time, is wrong.
	I strongly appeal to my noble friend to take on board what has been said in the Chamber this evening. I very much hope that we will have a consensual solution in which we can all take a degree of satisfaction. If we can, that will be a victory for your Lordships’ House. I hope that it can be achieved without having to go into the Lobbies—but if that is the only way, that is the only way.

Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: My Lords, I shall intervene briefly, given the lateness of the hour. First, I apologise to the Committee, because I was unable to be present for Second Reading; I was out of the country.
	Like most other people, I wondered what mischief this clause sought to remedy. Having read the impact assessment, I found that the rationale for intervention is a potential lack of awareness among members that they might be contributing to a political fund.
	I have been around in the trade union movement for a very long time. When I first joined my former union, the Confederation of Health Service Employees, in 1958, I was given a rulebook which explained that there was a political fund and told you how not to pay into it if you did not wish to. In those days, that was probably as far as it went. We have heard tonight about the King-Murray agreement, if I can describe it as such. I wanted to check tonight whether my more recent union, UNISON, was still honouring that agreement. We have heard from my noble friend Lord Monks that the four big unions are still doing that in one way or another. I looked at UNISON’s website tonight. UNISON came together from the merger of three unions with two different traditions. Two of the former unions, mine and the National Union of Public Employees, were affiliated to the Labour Party, but the third, NALGO, was not. We wanted to bring the traditions of those three different unions together.
	On the website—I have printed it off and it is writ very large; I am sure that it can be read from the other side of the Chamber—it states, under “Our political funds”, that,
	“in UNISON you can choose whether to pay a proportion of your subs into the affiliated political fund (Labour Link), the general political fund … both, or neither”.
	At the bottom of the page, it gives a list of forms, including the political fund exemption form, so it is writ large in that document. I printed off the political fund exemption form which, again, is fairly large.
	Every member gets a rulebook when joining. I am sure that they do not all read every page of it, any more than I have read the 16 pages of contract rules for a holiday I booked last weekend. Nevertheless, that rulebook states:
	“A member who is exempt from the obligation to contribute to the political fund shall not be … directly or indirectly under any disability or disadvantage”.
	That is honouring the agreement reached by the noble Lord, Lord King and the late Lord Murray. The rulebook also tells you how to get in touch with the Certification Officer if you are aggrieved or believe that there is a breach of the rules on the political fund. As we have heard tonight, there have been very few complaints and none has been upheld.
	I make that point in support of my noble friend Lord Monks and Lady Smith of Basildon. My noble friend’s amendment or something like it is an answer to some of the perceived problems that are referred to in the impact assessment. If it is not possible to go along those lines, it is quite clear that it is about much more than a perception of a potential lack of awareness; it is about that unfairness which we heard about a few moments ago. That is something up with which I hope that this House will not put.

Lord Leigh of Hurley: My Lords, I referred earlier to my interests in the register. I further declare that I am a donor to a party and regularly opt in—not as regularly as my party would like, but at least once a year I choose to opt in voluntarily.
	There are a number of issues which I want to address, not least those raised by my noble friends on this side of the Committee. The opt-in is discussed in the manifesto on pages 19 and 49, and it is clear from reading those two pages—which are completely separate from the pages to do with party funding—that this is a manifesto pledge.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made the point that party funding has to be taken as a package and, if it were a matter of party funding—which I do not believe it is—it would be inappropriate to cherry pick. Well, up to a point. For example, in 2000, the PPERA imposed a condition on companies for shareholder approval before donations could be made and that was a unilateral act. As a result, donations from public companies to all political parties have pretty much dried up. Likewise, in the Labour Party manifesto, there were a number of commitments to change the way parties were funded, including putting on caps. If Labour had won the election, I am sure that it would have wished to implement its manifesto. We would have put a contrary argument but, none the less, we would have accepted that the manifesto commitment of the Labour Party would be enacted. So it is not quite as clear as we have been led to believe.
	I believe that this is all about transparency. I have read some of the proceedings of the Select Committee. It was quite interesting to read Mr McNicol’s submissions where he reveals that, of the £22 million raised in total by political funding, some 54% does not go to Labour nor to any political party. This begs the question, where does 46% of the £22 million go? I have tried very hard to find the answer within political fund accounts, but we do not know. It is not purely about money to political parties; it is for political activities. Within UNISON’s accounts, it states that it is up to the executive committee to determine where that money is spent. So there are wider implications than just political funding—it is about political activities.

Lord Monks: I do not know whether I am helping or not, but the unions do not necessarily spend all their political fund money on the Labour Party. New ones have come in since 1984 and, because of the helpful legislation by the noble Lord, Lord King on ballots, none of them is affiliated to the Labour Party. Even the affiliated unions spend only a proportion of their money on the Labour Party.

Lord Leigh of Hurley: Indeed, as I have said. We do not know where a very large proportion of it—46%—goes; it goes on political activity.

Lord Collins of Highbury: The trade union movement in this country is one of the most highly regulated in the world. It is required to submit an annual return to the Certification Officer. Every single penny that is held in trust of the membership is accounted for in that annual return. Every single penny is also recorded in the published annual report. This is far more transparent than any private company that donates to the Conservative Party. As I said, that is money that they may spend on political purposes. They do not have to. It could be for a campaign for civil liberties or voter registration, or a campaign against racists and fascists—and for safety at work, and lots of other things.

Lord Monks: Or supporting a Conservative Member of Parliament.

Lord Leigh of Hurley: I thank you. I did actually read the Certification Officer’s report this afternoon. It details exactly income and expenditure, union by union, but it does not specify exactly where the money goes.

Lord Collins of Highbury: The noble Lord read the annual report of the Certification Officer, but if you go on the Certification Officer’s website you will see published there the annual return of every single union. You can see that—and it will have a copy of the annual report.

Lord Leigh of Hurley: Thank you. I have read the annual reports of a number of the unions and, as I say, 54%—according to Mr McNicol; I am taking him at his word—goes to the Labour Party. On the rest, it is not clear; he has not stated where it goes, and I believe he was asked or will be asked where it goes.

Lord Collins of Highbury: The money that a union collects is foremost a union’s money to spend for the benefit of its members. The fact that it does not give money to the Labour Party does not mean that it disappears in a cloud of smoke; it is there to be used. If it has not spent it in one financial year, it will be on its balance sheet. The impression being given is that somehow something dodgy is going on with millions of pounds. Nothing dodgy is going on. If you want to see something dodgy, go to private companies that do not have shareholders which donate to the Conservative Party.

Lord Leigh of Hurley: With great respect, private companies do have shareholders and have to produce annual accounts. The point that I am making is simply that there is money raised for political funds, and we do not know where 48% of it is allocated. It is entirely up to unions how they wish to allocate the money. The point I am making is that those people whose money is taken on an opt-out basis do not have the transparency that they might be given.
	Let me help a little further. The point has been made, first, about whether it is fair and, secondly, that there have not been any complaints. I do not think it is enough to say that there have not been any complaints, given, in most cases, the very small sums that are taken on an opt-out system. I draw noble Lords’ attention to a poll of Unite members, undertaken in July 2013. The poll had a statistical margin of error of 3.67%. Before taking the poll, Unite members were asked a factual question: “In the 2010 election, how did you vote?”. Of the people questioned, 28% voted Conservative, 20% voted Lib Dem and 40% for the Labour Party. I am sure the political spending did not reflect that, but none the less that is how Unite members actually voted. They were also asked whether they contributed to the union’s political fund. Only 37% said that they believed they contributed to the political fund. That is factually incorrect, but that is what they thought. They were then asked: “Would you support or oppose Unite making further large donations to the Labour Party in the future?”. Some 49% of Unite members, when asked that question, said no. They may not be complaining, but are they really aware of what is going on and is it really fair that their money is taken on an opt-out basis?
	Some people think that the rules should be changed so that members have to opt in—

Lord Lea of Crondall: The noble Lord says that we are not talking about the Conservative Party, only about the Labour Party. That is very convenient—but on the analogy that he is now presenting, reiterating and repeating all the time he is speaking, the same analysis of how Conservative Party finances work would come off a lot worse. It is really rather inequitable that he should make these unilateral statements about the Labour Party without recognising what goes on inside his own party.

Lord Leigh of Hurley: With respect, we are discussing the Trade Union Bill and the opt-in or opt-out of the Trade Union Bill. As I said, PPERA came in to deal with another matter separately, perfectly properly.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: I do apologise to the noble Lord—I rarely intervene on these matters, but he has moved me to do so. He has been speaking in his contribution so far about funding to political parties but, earlier today, when he intervened on me, he said that the Bill had nothing to do with political party funding. How does he square those two comments?

Lord Leigh of Hurley: They have been raised and the point has been made that there have been no complaints. I am trying to make the point, which I hope the poll makes perfectly clear, that Unite members themselves are not aware of this opt-out/opt-in and of the effect of the opt-out, and their views do not necessarily reflect the level of donations made by Unite on their behalf.
	The concept of money being taken from you without your specific and particular permission is alien. With great respect, private companies have to have permission from shareholders, as I have already said. For any amount over £5,000, there has to be a specific vote by shareholders. Individuals who are members of Unite have an opt-out; they do not have the ability to state that they wish to opt in. Accordingly, it is a manifesto commitment of the Conservative Party. Taking out the whole of Clause 10 would be a very retrograde step. I encourage the Minister to ensure that it stays in.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has said, the impact on party funding of Clauses 10 and 11 is being looked at by a Select Committee. I thank the chairman of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who I am glad to see in his place, for taking on this burden, and all the noble Lords, some of whom are here this evening, who will be serving on and contributing to the Select Committee. I also thank the Committee for being so pragmatic in taking the groups led by Amendments 57, 66 and 68 together. There is such a lot of overlap. I will try to answer the questions under the various headings, as I have said that I would. Where I cannot, I will write to noble Lords.
	I should welcome the noble Lord, Lord Wrigglesworth, to our debate on this Bill for the first time. He will be interested to know that the Minister, Nick Boles, will be giving evidence to the Select Committee tomorrow. It is also good to see the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie of Culkein, contributing.
	These clauses will give union members more information about what unions are doing with their money. They will ensure that the members’ contributions to the political fund are made only with their explicit assent. Contrary to what my noble friend Lord Balfe was saying, that is a clear manifesto commitment. We will legislate to ensure that trade unions use a transparent opt-in process for union subscriptions. As my noble friend Lord Leigh pointed out, there were transparency initiatives by Labour in the Labour years affecting corporate donations.
	I think we all felt that it was very good to hear from my noble friend Lord King. Earlier this week he was kind enough to draw my attention to the exchange of papers on political funds that he had as Secretary of State for Employment with the then general secretary of the TUC, the late Len Murray.

Lord Monks: Was that the first time that the Minister saw those papers?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: It was.

Lord Monks: So the Bill was prepared without any knowledge of an agreement made by the previous Conservative Government with the TUC.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: The first time that I saw the papers in relation to 1984, shown to me by my noble friend Lord King, was at the beginning of this week. I would have to ask others what they knew.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: I am grateful to the Minister for that extraordinarily candid answer. Will she check with her officials, and report back to your Lordships’ House, whether at any time, when they were either preparing the impact assessment or briefing Minister on policy, they were aware of that agreement negotiated by the noble Lord, Lord King, and the late Len Murray?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: The agreement of course dates back a fair number of years. The letter from the then Government, as I have now seen it, undertook not to introduce in the then Trade Union Act provisions to require an active opt-in on the condition that the TUC council adopted a statement of guidance on trade union political funds. However, my noble friend Lord King made clear that if the guidance were not to prove effective the Government must of course reserve their right to legislate to ensure that union members were fully aware of the choice that they had in relation to political funds and were readily able to exercise it. The noble Lord, Lord King, quoted from the original guidance. Currently, a member automatically contributes to a political fund as part of their union subscription, unless or until they notify the union that they do not wish to do so. This system relies on the inertia of members to opt out.
	We have concerns about the system because it does not seem to be providing union members with the information they need to make an informed decision, so those who might want to opt out and get their money back simply do not know. That is why I share some of the scepticism that my noble friend Lord King mentioned this evening. We have reviewed the available online membership forms—the point at which the applicant is actively contributing money—for 25 unions which have political funds. We discovered that 12 unions—just under half—do not mention the existence of a political fund. Of the 11 that refer to a political fund, a further five do not make it clear that a member has a choice to opt out, and in many cases it is unclear whether there is a reduction in contributions when a member chooses to opt out.
	The noble Lord, Lord Monks, whom I have known for many years, shared some other examples of good practice with us. I will certainly get officials to look at them and will look at them myself. The point is that all union members who pay the levy must have a choice, and that needs to be transparent at the start of the process. I am sure everybody would agree that it should not be in some complicated and separate link.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about our impact assessment, which we were able to publish in good time for Committee.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: Well—

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: In time for Committee. The impact assessment sets out scenarios about how the move to opt in might change the number of those contributing and therefore the level of contributions. This reflected the uncertainty around the impact. This approach was endorsed by the Regulatory Policy Committee. The assessment recognises that member inertia might reduce contribution rates, but that unions are likely to respond with a stronger rationale and more communication to encourage contributions. As I recall, PCS did such a campaign when changes were introduced in the Civil Service. There will be other factors beyond any reforms that will also affect contributions levels. Contribution rates to political funds have been rising among union members over the past few years, which is perhaps a reason for some optimism among the political classes.
	The Certification Officer has been mentioned. We will come to that on day four. I see the strengthened Certification Officer as having an important and useful role.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in relation to burdens, mentioned penalties and asked me about the penalties that might apply if members did not opt—

Baroness Smith of Basildon: I asked about penalties if organisations used their best endeavours to achieve what the Government are setting out for them but were unable to do so in the time stipulated.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: The answer, which I hope she will welcome, is that a union will not be able to deduct a payment to a political fund if the member has not opted in within three months of the commencement of the Act, but there are no penalties and a member can always opt in at a later date.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: Is the Minister saying that she is creating a criminal offence, but if someone fails to comply with the provision, there will be no penalty?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: My understanding is that it is not a criminal offence. It is an offence. This quite often happens in regulations. I deal with a lot of regulation. You do not always have severe penalties. In this case, that is the situation. We will certainly look further, but it seemed to me a reasonable and moderate approach.
	The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, raised the issue that the Certification Officer had not been consulted and that there had been very few complaints. Given this lack of transparency in a significant number of cases, how would people know that they should complain, that they could get an opt-out or, indeed, that the Certification Officer existed? In some cases the union may publicise that; in others it may not.

Lord Stoneham of Droxford: I suspect that one reason the noble Lord, Lord King, did the deal with the TUC was that he knew that every 10 years there was going to be a ballot on the political funds in the unions, of which there have been three or four. So every 10 years all trade union members are reminded that they contribute to the political fund, and they have the option of voting it down if they wish to do so. Surely that is pretty transparent.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: I thank the noble Lord for mentioning that because I am going to talk about the 10 years in a minute.
	Clause 10 seeks to address the previous point by adopting a transparent opt-in process for union subscriptions. Additionally—in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham—the only time a union member is informed of their choice to contribute is at the time of a political fund ballot, which happens only once every 10 years. Ten years is a long period of time to update members with the information they need about political fund contributions and activities. Clause 10 provides that members should decide whether to contribute every five years. This will ensure that members make their choice based on more current and transparent information of spending on political activities.
	Moreover, the move to an opt-in approach for union members to contribute to political funds is in line with current best practice more broadly; that is an important point. I shall give two examples. In consumer law, reforms have reinforced transparency for consumers when they are charged for goods and services. The consumer rights directive was implemented in the UK in 2014. This reform reinforced the concept of express consent. Traders need the active consent of the consumer for all payments. Pre-ticked boxes are not permitted. Moreover, the Information Commissioner’s Office provides guidance on best practice in relation to direct-marketing communications. This recommends that best practice is to provide an unticked opt-in box and invite the person to confirm their agreement by ticking.

Lord Monks: I am sorry to make another intervention. In comparison with these examples, the amount of a union political fund contribution is, on average, about £2.50 per member per year. So that is the amount of money on an individual basis. We are talking about millions when all the aggregates are done, but for the individual this is not the biggest financial decision of their life.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: It is a political decision. That is the whole point.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: It is an important political decision, as my noble friend said. In other parts of the Bill we have been talking about looking forward, and this is an area where I think the opt-in is a good way forward.

Lord Polak: At present, as I understand it, union members contribute to the political fund of a union unless they opt out. There is no active decision by union members to contribute. As a result, many union members may be unaware that a portion of their membership fee funds campaigns that they may disagree with. Given the controversial nature of some of these campaigns, surely clear consent from the individual member making the financial contribution, even if it is £2.50, is imperative.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: I agree with my noble friend. These are important decisions, and there are differences between us on the various Benches. But the Bill will make the default position for a member to exercise a positive and up-to-date choice in line with what I see as best practice.

Lord Stoneham of Droxford: I hope that the Minister is going to come to this point. Given that she is one of the pioneers of the digital world, surely she must accept that that is also something that the Government must consider—otherwise people will say that they are trying to deter people.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: As is so often the case, the noble Lord makes a good point. Perhaps he will give me a minute. I wanted to say that we will not be discussing Clause 11 until another day, but it provides for the transparency of expenditure and information that members need to make a sound decision. I am clear that these changes are proportionate and for the benefit of individual members. They are not aimed at what unions decide to spend their money on but provide a transparent choice for individual members.
	I now turn, for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, to Amendments 57 and 64 on giving notice via electronic means. I recognise the arguments that have been made in favour of electronic means of communication and have acknowledged in the Bill’s impact assessment that there are extra costs for unions in communicating with their members. I can see that moving to an electronic means of communication would help reduce the burden of postage costs for both unions and members, but particularly for unions at a time when they are going to have to contact members to make an active opt-in to the political fund.

Lord Collins of Highbury: We have been talking about whether members should get information through the website. Has any analysis been done of how people join unions nowadays? Certainly, when I looked at this, at least 60%, and possibly more, of the members of the biggest unions were joining online—so the process of being aware of the current position on opting out is better effected online. Has the noble Baroness made any analysis of how people are joining and staying in unions?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: The noble Lord makes an interesting point. I have said that we are in favour of looking at electronic means of communication and I will take that point into account in the further work that we are doing. I do not know what we have done so far.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has proposed that the implementation of Clauses 10 and 11 should be delayed, and she looked at this in two different ways. Amendment 66 would in effect change the transitional provisions in Clause 10 for members to sign up to the new opt-in system from three months to five years. This would mean that the current arrangement whereby union members have not made an active decision to opt in, and indeed may not know what they are contributing to or even whether their contribution will remain in place, was absurd. To be clear, the three months relates to the time that an individual member has to opt in, and the general commencement of these clauses is a separate matter. There are two different things happening here: the three-month period and the commencement of the provisions. We will give this matter proper consideration. We will listen and reflect further on the points that have been made.
	Amendments 123 and 124 are similarly intended to delay implementation. Whereas Amendment 66 would introduce a delay by lengthening the transition arrangements, these amendments seek to delay commencement of the provisions for five years.
	On the substance, noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree that we should delay implementation of the transparent opt-in provisions for five years, by whatever means. Having said that,
	I recognise that there is a lot of angst about the lack of necessary preparatory time for unions to implement the new arrangements. We do not want to make the system unworkable by rushing it, and I will reflect further on the two approaches to the issue of timing that have been put forward this evening.
	In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, about the system of reducing contributions, it is up to individual members whether to contribute to a political fund.
	Finally—as it is getting late—there are some amendments in relation to opt-in renewal dates on which I will write to noble Lords. They seem straightforward and I do not want to delay the Committee any longer. However, I should comment on one issue. It has been proposed that the new opt-in arrangements should apply only to new members. However, that would exclude very large numbers of trade union members from the purview of these clauses. It is important that all members have a choice about whether or not to contribute to a political fund.

Lord Collins of Highbury: I asked this question and it is the subject of one of my amendments. It would help if the Minister, perhaps before she comes back more formally, could consult unions on how people join nowadays and what the turnover is. This process could be managed through new members, possibly within a relatively short timeframe. So before the Minister reaches a final conclusion, I urge her to consult unions on this particular issue.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: My Lords, my mind is not closed to logistic arrangements that would make these provisions workable; that would be ridiculous. But I did not want to leave the House with the idea that, somehow, just new employees, as it were, would come into the system. We feel that that would not quite hit the mark. However, of course I will look at the process and how it is working in reflecting on this issue before we return to it at Report.
	We have had a good, long and late debate. We will reflect further in the way that I have indicated but, in the mean time, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and her willingness to reflect on some of these issues. I have found this quite an extraordinary debate. The more I think about it, the fact that the Minister did not know of that letter—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord King, on this point—is amazing, given that that would have been something for her to look at and consider.
	This comes back to the impact assessment. I am used to Home Office impact assessments, which often state what other solutions have been considered, why they were rejected and how much they would cost. It seems to me that, on this, no other way forward was ever considered. The amendment that my noble friend Lord Monks put forward is something that the Government should have considered before coming forward with this proposal, particularly if they had known about the arrangements of the noble Lord, Lord King, in 1984.
	The Minister has addressed some of the detailed points, and I think she understands that my amendments around implementation are, in essence, probing amendments to try to ascertain the justification for the proposals that the Government have brought forward and the urgency of them. That is the key part that the Minister missed in her response. She should look again at the answers she has given, or I could table some Written Questions, because clearly there are some points missing. On the impact assessment, she admitted—or confessed to your Lordships’ House—that there is uncertainty around the impact. I think that is an honest and candid statement, and I am grateful to the Minister for that. The rationale she gave was that there are concerns about the system because it does not “seem” to work. I find it extraordinary that we get such legislation through because there are concerns that the system does not “seem” to do what we want it to. To me, that is not the way in which legislation should be made.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, the noble Baroness has attacked my noble friend the Minister for the Government apparently not knowing about the agreement reached by me and Len Murray. It is quite interesting, is it not, that this Bill has come clean through the House of Commons, where there are a lot of union members on the Labour side? It is quite clear that every union member on the Labour side in the Commons had forgotten about it as well, which is part of my concern.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: There is a real point in that. I think that there should be longer memories in your Lordships’ House, but perhaps there should be collective memories in government departments. It is one thing knowing in a debate what letters were written and agreements reached many years ago, but when Governments bring forward legislation there is a duty on them to understand what has happened previously on these issues.
	I am grateful to the noble Lords who contributed to this debate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, that I particularly agreed with and enjoyed his contribution. He and I rarely agreed when he was in the Labour Party. He was far to the left of where I was then. I do not doubt his sincerity or loyalty to his new party. He made a very sincere plea to the Minister tonight. I concur with everything he said.
	In fact, the only support for the Minister came from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, who was concerned about my jewellery.

A noble Lord: That was someone else.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: I apologise to the noble Lord; he would never make such a silly comment. Quite extraordinarily, though, he had said earlier that this was not about party-political funding, and then he made an entire speech about party-political funding.
	I am glad that the Minister will reflect on some of these issues, but I am disappointed that she is not reflecting on the rationale behind them and the justification for them. I am sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who has sat through a long debate tonight. We are expecting a lot from him. I say in all sincerity that the work of the Select Committee will be very important. We heard tonight how that factual approach will inform how we proceed on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
	Amendment 66 withdrawn.
	Amendments 67 and 68 not moved.
	Clause 10 agreed.
	House resumed.

House adjourned at 10.46 pm.